Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before ore Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Barnet District Gas and Water Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till to-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — DANCING INSTRUCTRESSES.

Colonel DAY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if his attention has been drawn to the dangers incurred by young women attracted to undesirable night clubs as dancing instructresses or partners; and will he consider legislation having as its object the registration of any person or persons, or any agent acting for such person or persons, who engages, employs, or allows to be employed any female as a dancing instructress or partner?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I am aware of the dangers referred to, but I do not think that the remedy proposed is practicable, or would have the desired effect.

Colonel DAY: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider amending the existing legislation, so as to bring these persons within the Act?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: What Act?

Colonel DAY: The Theatrical Employers Registration Act, which would answer the purpose, if they were brought within it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider introducing
legislation to register, licence and tax all people who want to register other people?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is an excellent idea and perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would communicate it to his own followers.

Oral Answers to Questions — GENERAL STRIKE.

ARREST AND CONVICTION (SOUTHWARK).

Mr. HAYES: 2.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the circumstances surrounding the arrest and subsequent conviction of Mr. William Jones, 3, Wagstaffe Buildings, Sumner Street, Southwark; whether he is aware that Police-constable 478, M. Division, Charles Hutchings, who declined to give evidence in support of the officers who effected the arrest, but who was not called upon to give evidence either for or against the prisoner, has been fined, reprimanded, and transferred as the result of disciplinary proceedings taken against him; that the police-constable has resigned rather than submit to the alleged unjust treatment; and whether, in view of the effect of police evidence upon which the prisoner was convicted and sentenced, he will consider the establishment of a tribunal under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, to inquire fully into this matter, on the ground that it is one of definite and urgent public importance?

Mr. HADEN GUEST: 3.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that since the arrest of William Jones in Sumner Street, Southwark, on 8th May, for an alleged offence under the Emergency Powers Regulations, and for which, on police evidence, he was found guilty and sentenced to three months' imprisonment, Police-constable Charles Hutchings has resigned from the Metropolitan Police rather than submit to disciplinary action taken against him for matters arising out of his protest against the manner of the arrest of, and the evidence given against, Jones; and whether, in view of the issues raised in respect of both the constable and the convicted man, and in order that there shall be no question of a miscarriage of justice in either case, he will authorise the whole matter to be inquired into by a tribunal set up under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have made inquiry and find that the ex-constable was at the Court to give evidence on a minor point, but his evidence was not required. He was not in a position to see the act in respect of which Jones was arrested, and there was no question of his giving evidence with regard thereto. The offence in respect of which disciplinary action was taken against him was the use of obscene and insulting language to another member of the force. The whole case was fully investigated in accordance with the disciplinary procedure of the Metropolitan Police, and I can find nothing to suggest the need for any further investigation as regards either the case of the prisoner or that of the ex-constable.

Mr. HAYES: In view of the fact that this police officer was present on the occasion, but was not shown on the charge sheet, and as his evidence was not brought to the notice of the magistrate does the right hon. Gentleman think that the magistrate would, in fact, have sentenced the prisoner to three months, if he had had the evidence of this constable?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not understand the question. It is not a question of whether the constable was a witness for prosecution or not. The police did not want a, witness for the prosecution except on a particular point, and the constable was not called on behalf of the defendant nor did the defendant ask to have him called.

Mr. HAYES: As this police officer was the principal officer in the case and was on duty in the thoroughfare when the man was arrested, should not his evidence, whether for or against the prisoner, have been brought to the notice of the magistrate?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think he was the principal officer at all and, as I understand, he was not in a position to see the act for which the man was arrested. The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I say that he is mixing up two. One question is whether the man was rightly convicted or not, and I would point out there can be an appeal from the decision. The other question is whether the constable was properly disciplined for using this language to another member of the force, and I am bound to say I think he was.

Mr. HAYES: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the officers who made the complaint against this constable were in fact, all giving evidence before the magistrate, and, if so, why were they not shown on the charge sheet?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I must have notice of that question. I cannot say definitely whether they were shown on the charge sheet or not.

Mr. HAYES: Has this man been released, or is he still serving the sentence?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I must ask for notice of that question also. I cannot carry all the details of every case in my head.

Mr. H. GUEST: Is it not the fact that this man was actually released, after representations had been made by me to the right hon. Gentleman and after he had served only five weeks of the sentence and does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the matter might be looked into further?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Now that the hon. Member reminds me of the fact, I find that is so. I have been rather confused as between the two hon. Gentlemen who have put these questions. The hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. H. Guest) did come to me, and I did look into the case personally, and I did release the man. That shows that I took the case very fully into my own personal consideration, because I do not release prisoners without careful consideration. In doing that, I also considered the case of the police constable raised by the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes), and went fully into it, and I am convinced that justice has been done.

Mr. HAYES: Is there not a similarity between this case and the case of Major Shepperd and the famous case of Stinie Morrison, and cannot the right hon. Gentleman set up a tribunal in this case as has been done in similar cases?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have told the House that I went into this matter very fully. If the hon. Member has any further information which he likes to put before me to convince that there should be a further inquiry, I will consider it. At present I have released one man, and I do not think there is any need for any further inquiry in regard to the other.

COMPENSATION CLAIMS, POPLAR.

Mr. MARCH: 11.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has had an opportunity of examining the claims made by some inhabitants of Poplar who were injured and had property destroyed by the police after the baton charge made by them on 12th May last; and what action he proposes to take to meet the claims?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am not aware that any property was destroyed by the police. Three claims for compensation under the Riot (Damages) Act, which have been submitted, have not yet been determined but are being examined by the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, who is the authority for dealing with such claims arising in the district.

Mr. MARCH: Has the right hon. Gentleman received a report from the police-inspector of Poplar who went down on purpose and was shown the property which was destroyed, in one case of the value of nearly £20?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have received several police reports in regard to this matter, but while the case is pending it would be quite improper that I should ask for details, or to announce them in this House.

Mr. MARCH: Might I remind the Home Secretary—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"] Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the answer he has just given he says that he is not aware that any property was destroyed by the police?

REMOVAL OF MAGISTRATE FROM BENCH, BLAYDON.

Mr. WHITELEY: 61.
asked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that Mr. Henry Bolton, Chairman of the Blaydon Urban District Council, has been removed from the county bench on account of having been convicted, during the time of the general strike, of an offence against the Emergency Regulations; and whether, in view of the circumstances at the time, and the position of Mr. Bolton on the urban district council, he will make representations to the Lord Chancellor as to the possibility of reconsidering the matter?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): Mr. Henry Bolton, who
was a justice of the peace by virtue of his office of Chairman of the Blaydon Urban District Council, has been excluded from the exercise of his functions as a justice by the Lord Chancellor in consequence of his conviction for a serious offence under the Emergency Regulations, 1926. The Lord Chancellor has carefully considered the matter, and has decided that he cannot alter his decision.

Mr. WHITELEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether such a decision would still remain in operation if Mr. Bolton were to be appointed Chairman of the Council next year?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think that that is a hypothetical question.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR TRAFFIC.

OPEN CUT-OUTS.

Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEY: 4.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware of the nuisance caused in the Metropolitan area by motor cars being driven with open cut-outs, especially at night; and if he will give instructions to the police to enforce a stricter observance of the law in this respect?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have given this matter my attention. The police do all they can to secure observance of the law, and summonses for extensive noise are frequently taken out by them, over 5,000 being taken out last year and over 3,000 in the first six months of this year. Comparatively speaking, I am glad to say that the use of "cut-outs" in the Metropolitan area is not a common one, and the noise complained of is more probably caused by inefficient silencers, particularly in the case of motor cycles. The question of improving silencers in motor cycles is now under discussion between the Ministry of Transport and the British Cycle and Motor Cycle Manufacturers' and Traders' Union.

Mr. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman see what can be done to get silencers put on in the shunting yards at railways?

MOTOR BICYCLES (ACCIDENTS).

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 9.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the large number of
motor accidents, particularly in connection with motor bicycles, which are now taking place; and whether, in view of this, he will instruct the police authorities to prosecute more rigorously the riders of motor bicycles who are travelling at very high speeds, in preference to instituting prosecutions against motor-car drivers who, under reasonable conditions of traffic, drive their cars at a speed which slightly exceeds that laid down by law?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I can only say that the police will continue to do all they can to check the driving of both motor cars and motor cycles at speeds which are dangerous to the public.

Dr. WATTS: In view of recent accidents, especially to pillion riders, wilt the right hon. Gentleman take some steps so that the large number of deaths, and fatal accidents may be averted?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am not quite sure of the incidence of accidents due to pillion riding, but perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL TRADE DISPUTE.

FOREIGN COAL SUPPLIES.

Dr. WATTS: 5.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to a resolution passed by the Newton Urban District Council refusing to sanction the use of foreign coal, which will result in the district being without water and light in a few days; and what action he proposes to take to see that the needs of this locality are provided for?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): I am informed that the council have now rescinded their resolution. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

POLICE BILLETS (WESTHOUGHTON).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 6.
asked the Home Secretary the number of police constables and officers transferred to the Westhoughton township for special duties; how many are billeted at the local Conservative club premises; what are the terms upon which they are billeted there; how long is it proposed to retain them in the township; whether efforts have
been made to find billets for them elsewhere; and whether he will now take steps to remove them from the Conservative club premises and place them altogether outside the possibility of political influence?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The total number of men transferred to Westhoughton is one inspector, three sergeants and 36 constables, of whom one inspector, two sergeants and 32 constables are accommodated at the premises mentioned. 1s. per day is charged for each man for the sleeping accommodation; meals are obtained elsewhere. The chief constable cannot say how long it may be necessary to retain the men in the township: he has been unable to find suitable accommodation elsewhere.

Mr. DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman impress upon the Chief Constable of Lancashire that he should endeavour to find room for these officers elsewhere; and is he aware that some of the officers who are operating in Westhoughton have found places outside the town?

Sir HERBERT NIELD: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any complaint from these constables as to their environment?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: None whatever. As regards the Supplementary Question of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Davies) he has been in the Home Office and he knows that one has to be careful in regard to chief constables who are independent officers. I can only ask them for information, and I have received the information. I can also transmit a complaint, and, if the hon. Member has any complaint from any member of this force, then of course I will transmit it to the Chief Constable.

Mr. PALING: Does the hon. Gentleman think it desirable that police officers should be billeted in a political club to whatever party it may belong?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: They must be billeted somewhere and it is always difficult, as the hon. Member knows, to get billets for police officers and others away from their own homes. This was the most convenient place in which to billet them, and there have been other cases of men being billeted in other clubs of other political parties and there has been no complaint.

Captain BRASS: Has the right hon. Gentleman any control of the police outside the Metropolitan Police area?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, I have a certain control. There is a financial relationship between the Government and the police outside the area and where there is a financial relationship there is always a certain amount of control.

Captain BRASS: Are we to understand then that the right hon. Gentleman can answer questions relating to police outside the Metropolitan area?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Mr. Speaker will consider the relevancy of any question which may be put.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Is it not better as these men have to be billeted in a dub that it should be in a Conservative club.

INTIMIDATION (FOREST OF DEAN).

Captain BRASS: 10.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to an outbreak of intimidation against miners who wish to work in the Forest of Dean; and what steps he is taking to afford them protection?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am aware that there have recently been a number of cases of intimidation. The police have been, and are, taking very active measures. The available strength in the coalfield has been considerably increased and further reinforcements can be sent immediately, if required. I have every confidence in the chief constable who is in close touch with my office. Proceedings have been instituted in some 60 cases, 12 of which were dealt with by the magistrates on Tuesday. I think my hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that the miners who wish to work will be fully protected.

Commander WILLIAMS: Will this protection be given to these men, not only in that event, but in any form of intimidation from their union if it tries to fine them for working?

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the hon. and gallant Member for Torquay (Commander Williams) that if he cares to go down the mine, he will have the same protection?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As to the first supplementary question, I think that
is not under the jurisdiction of the Home Office. It is a matter for the Secretary for Mines. With respect to the second supplementary question, if any man wishes to work in a mine, he will be given protection.

Mr. MACLEAN: Will the hon. and gallant Member for Torquay take note of that reply?

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: Is the Home Secretary aware that a number of mineworkers engaged in out-crop work, on coming away from that work, used provocative language to others whom they met? Will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions to prevent that?

Mr. LOOKER: What form will that protection take?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman should put that question down.

POOR RELIEF (MANCHESTER DISTRICT).

Mr. SUTTON: 29.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the decision of the Manchester Board of Guardians to stop all relief to the miners who are locked out in the Manchester district; and. will he say whether the guardians have taken this action at his request?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the hon. Member is aware, the relief of miners is lawful only within the limits laid down in the Merthyr Tydfil judgment and re-stated in the circular letter issued by me on the 5th May. It was reported to me that certain miners were beings relieved in the Manchester Union in the belief that the judgment did not apply to them. I accordingly informed the guardians, after making inquiries, that on the information before me these miners appeared to be in precisely the same position as persons ordinarily employed in mines in other parts of the country and that relief could only be afforded to them within the limits mentioned. I understand that the guardians are now complying with the law in this matter.

Mr. SUTTON: Seeing these men are unemployed through no fault of their own, will the right hon. Gentleman get the Government to introduce legislation so that these men and women will not have to starve?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot accept the premises of the hon. Member's question.

Mr. SUTTON: They are locked out.

Major COLFOX: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider the present stoppage is in any sense a lock-out?

Mr. SUTTON: You ought to go and work.

Mr. PALING: It would be a new experience.

POOR RELIEF (BOYS).

Miss LAWRENCE: 32.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is yet prepared to answer the question whether it is with his sanction that boards of guardians refuse relief to boys in the colliery districts who have never been employed in coal mining?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The sanction of the Minister of Health is not required for the exercise of the discretion of boards of guardians in individual cases, as long as they are acting within the limits of the law. I may, however, say that in my opinion the position of boys who have never been engaged in the mining industry would not be affected by the Merthyr Tydvil judgment.

Mr. HARRIS: If this board of guardians do not do their duty, will the Minister, under the new Bill which is about to become an Act, have the power to take over its work?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is no reference in the question to any particular board of guardians.

Miss LAWRENCE: Is the Minister aware that I raised this matter on the 15th June on the Motion for the Adjournment, I and the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Mardy Jones); and in those circumstances does he agree with the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary that the matter had never been brought to his attention?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Member says that is so, I accept her statement. I can only say that the matter had not come to my personal attention until the Debate the other day.

Miss LAWRENCE: In view of the fact that many boards of guardians are refusing relief to boys who have never been employed in collieries, will the Minister give instructions to guardians that they are acting in error?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I dare say that will not be necessary after the publicity that has now been given to the opinions I have expressed.

Mr. MACKINDER: Did not the right hon. Gentleman send a circular letter to some guardians who had decided not to pay stating that they ought to pay, and cannot he do the same in the case of these boys?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I shall do whatever I think is necessary.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Arising from that answer, which was a very nasty answer, I want to ask the Minister if he will give those instructions?

WAGES AND PROFITS.

Mr. AMMON: 59.
asked the Secretary for Mines the average weekly earnings in the mining industry for the last available period, together with the profits made by the industry during the War?

Major Sir HARRY BARNSTON (Comptroller of the Household): I have been asked to reply. The average weekly wage of all classes of workpeople (including boys) employed at coal mines during the March quarter, 1926, was 53s. 4d. As regards the second part of the question, it is impossible, for the reasons given in Appendix 38 in the Third Volume of the Royal Commission's Report, to separate the War period for this purpose from the period of control, which lasted beyond it. But during the eight years 1914–1921 the average annual profit is estimated to have been £22.7 millions, and the average amount annually paid in wages, £154.3 millions.

Mr. PALING: Is the average wage calculated on the basis of a six-day week, or is it the actual wage received, in view of short time and so on?

Sir H. BARNSTON: I will make inquiries about that.

MINERS (RETURN TO WORK).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 58.
for
asked the Secretary for Mines how many coal-miners have returned to work in the coal mines since the Coal Mines Bill became law?

Sir H. BARNSTON: I have been asked to reply. No, Sir. Returns of employment are made weekly, and the first return for a period following the passage of the Act will be that for the present week.

OUT RELIFT, BOLTON.

Mr. RHYS DAVES: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the board of guardians of the Bolton Union decided yesterday to discontinue out-relief either in cash or kind to dependants of miners at present out of employment and whether he will make urgent representations to the Board as to their statutory obligations to afford relief to destitute persons.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This decision has not previously been brought to my notice, but I will make immediate inquiries. I may, however, say that while boards of guardians are bound to grant necessary relief, the form in which that relief is to be given is a matter for their decision.

Mr. DAVIES: If the facts of the case are as I have given them, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that the Bolton guardians carry out their statutory duties?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot say what steps I shall take until I have exact information.

DEATH IN BEDFORD GAOL (REGINALD RUSSELL).

Mr. HAYES: 7.
asked the Rome Secretary whether he is aware that the governor of Bedford Prison advised the prison doctor on several occasions on and after 19th May to remove prisoner Russell to a hospital cell and inform the relatives of the prisoner's serious illness; that this advice was not acted upon; that the doctor stated that the man was not seriously ill and would be all right in a day or two; that the governor reported to the Prison Commissioners that he was not satisfied that the doctor had done all that could have been done for the prisoner; whether these points were considered at the Home Office inquiry; and whether the Prison Commissioners took into account, when submitting their
recommendations to him, the 36 years of unblemished record of the governor and his consistent advocacy for many years of prison and penal reform?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am very sorry to have to answer questions which compel me to go into details concerning the degree of blameworthiness of an officer who, apart from this painful incident, had a long record of valuable service to his credit, and I will be as brief as possible. Every point that could be urged in his favour was considered at the inquiry, and every factor was taken into consideration by the Commissioners and by me. But the responsibility of the governor of a prison for what goes on under his management must be recognised, and I felt that it was my clear duty after what had happened in this case to take the course that I announced to the House a fortnight ago.

ALIENS (RUSSIAN SUBJECTS).

Colonel WOODCOCK: 12.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that, for the year ending 31st December, 1925, out of a total of 668 male aliens from European countries who were granted certificates of naturalisation 340 were Russians; and what steps are taken to ascertain that these aliens have proper means of subsistence and will not become a charge upon the rates in the near future or displace employed persons in this country?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am aware of the figures quoted, which appear in the last Annual Return. I endeavour, by utilising the various means of inquiry at my disposal, to see that all relevant considerations are taken into account in each case before a certificate of naturalisation is granted. The question of displacement of labour does not arise seeing that only resident aliens can be naturalised.

Colonel WOODCOCK: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman—

HON. MEMBERS: Order, order?

Sir W. de FRECE: 14.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that the Soviet Government will not repatriate certain of its subjects whom we wish to deport, he will consider the desirability in future of refusing any entry permits to Russian subjects whom the
Soviet Government want to send to this country until for each one they take back one of the persons whom we wish to deport?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Every Government is entitled to say whether a person is or is not one of its nationals according to its own law, and I do not think that we could endeavour to force any Government in the way suggested to accept individuals whom we believe to be its citizens but whom it does not recognise as such.

AMERICAN AND BRITISH FILMS.

Sir COOPER RAWSON: 13.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that it is proposed to show in the near future another American film, based on the late War, which is calculated to prove distasteful to a large section of the British public; and will he either view the film himself or have it viewed independently on behalf of the public as a whole before it is released for public display?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, Sir; my attention has been called to the film which my hon. Friend presumably has in mind. It has recently been passed by the British Board of Film Censors after careful examination, and is awaiting public exhibition; and the inquiries which I have made do not show that it is of such a character as my hon. Friend fears.

Sir C. RAWSON: If I supply particulars of half a dozen other films, which are considered undesirable by a great many people, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the matter?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Of course, it may be that I am thinking of one thing, and my hon. Friend is thinking of something else. I have had questions about this. If he will give me particulars of the films he has in mind, I will look into the matter?

Colonel DAY: Is it not a fact that the film censor is a Member of this House, thoroughly capable, and does his work in a perfectly satisfactory manner?

Sir WALTER de FRECE: Is it not obvious that if films prove distasteful to the public the public will stay away from them?

SCHOOL CHILDREN (SWIMMING).

Colonel WOODCOCK: 16.
asked the, President of the Board of Education if he will consider instituting a compulsory course of swimming for school children, after passing a, medical examination, as a definite part of the school curriculum where facilities for swimming are available; and if he is aware of any education committees in the country who have already taken steps for systematically teaching the art of swimming to the scholars?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lard Eustace Percy): think my hon. Friend underestimates the work already being done. A large number of authorities already prescribe systematic courses of instruction in swimming and, in general, I do not believe that it is necessary or desirable that the Board should issue detailed directions to authorities in regard to curriculum.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Will my Noble Friend use his influence with the authorities that are not using a system of training to see that this very popular form of instruction is carried out?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would it not, perhaps, be more useful for the Noble Lord to recommend that there should be a compulsory course in flotations?

Lord E. PERCY: I do not know quite what is the suggestion of my hon. Friend, whether he wants me to use my influence or to issue directions, which, I think, will perhaps come to the same thing.

CHILDREN (RHEUMATIC DISEASES).

Colonel DAY: 17.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to the Report of the sub-committee of the British Medical Association dealing with the spread of rheumatic diseases among children; and what steps have been taken by his Department to carry the recommendations of this committee into effect?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. As regards the second question, the recommendations are substantially in accord with the suggestions in the Chief
Medical Officer's preface to the Ministry's Report on Rheumatic Diseases, published in 1924, and continuous attention is paid to them in deciding the administrative policy of the Ministry.

Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these rheumatic diseases in children are caused by damp surroundings, and will he give his sanitary inspectors particular instructions to see, as far as possible, that the houses are habitable?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This is a question which is continuously under the consideration of the Department, and all pressure and influence that can be brought to bear upon its betterment is used.

BURIAL GROUNDS

Colonel DAY: 21.
asked the Minister of Health if he will consider introducing legislation that will have the effect that graves in new cemeteries shall not be designated first, second and third class graves?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think this matter is one in regard to which I should introduce legislation.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (ROYAL COMMISSION).

Mr. T. KENNEDY: 22.
asked the Minister of Health if and when it is proposed to introduce legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on National Health Insurance, particularly the recommendation that insurance, committees be abolished and their powers and duties transferred to committees of county and burgh councils?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The recommendations of the Royal Commission on National Health Insurance are receiving careful consideration, but I am not at present in a position to say which of them are to be adopted by the Government, or when it will be possible to introduce the necessary legislation to give effect to such of them as may be adopted and require legislation.

CASUAL WARDS.

Major GEORGE DAVIES: 23.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the fact that, largely as a result of closing the casual wards at Beaminster, Cerne Abbas, and Wimborne from 1st April, the number of casuals received by the Yeovil Board of Guardians has more than doubled during the quarter ended 30th June, 1926, as compared with the corresponding quarter of 1925; that, if the numbers do not decrease, the Yeovil Board of Guardians will be compelled to increase their present accommodation; that the closing of casual wards restricts the routes open to men on tramp and is a hardship to those in search of employment; and whether he will, in view of these circumstances, arrange for the reopening of the three casual wards above referred to?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My attention has not previously been called to these facts. The wards referred to were closed on the recommendation of the Dorset Vagrancy Committee for an experimental period of six months commencing from the 1st April last. The ground for closing was in each case the proximity of other casual wards and there has been no restriction of the routes open to men on tramp. I will obtain an early report upon the position.

Mr. THURTLE (for Mr. LANS-BURY): 31.
asked the Minister of Health how many persons, men, women, and children, were accommodated in casual and tramp wards in England and Wales on 31st December, 1924 and 1925, and on 30th June, 1925 and 1926; and is he now able to say that adequate and proper accommodation is made for the reception of tramps and casuals by Poor Law guardians in all the appropriate districts of England and Wales?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: With the hon. Member's permission I will circulate ill the OFFICIAL REPORT figures, in reply to the first part of the question. I cannot answer the second part with an unqualified affirmative, but eases where conditions are not altogether satisfactory are constantly under review and improve meats are being secured.

Following are the figures:

The numbers of casuals relieved in Poor Law institutions in 
England and Wales were:


—
On the night of—


1st January,1925.
1st January,1926.
26th June,1925.
25th June,1926.


Men
…
…
…
…
7,185
7,747
Separate figures are not available.


Women
…
…
…
…
393
436
Separate figures are not available.


Children
…
…
…
…
40
52
Separate figures are not available.







7,618
8,235
*7,300
*9,500


* Approximate figures

WATER SUPPLY, RISLEY, LANCASHIRE.

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: 24.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has now completed his inquiries regarding the water supply of the village of Risley, Lancashire; and, if so, can he say what arrangements have been made, if any, by the Warrington Water Board to meet the needs of the villagers?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. I understand that certain inhabitants of Risley have proposed some extensions of the mains of the Warrington Corporation but that the Corporation are under no obligation to make these extensions since the estimated annual revenue to be derived therefrom falls far short of the percentage of the capital cost of the mains to which the Corporation are entitled by Statute. The Corporation are, however, willing to carry out the requisite works it the rural district council will guarantee them over a period of years the statutory return to which they are entitled. This the rural district council are not prepared to do in view of the loss (equivalent to a 3d. rate) which it is estimated would fall on the rates of the parish owing to the difference between the proposed fixed revenue and the estimated amount of the water rates.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

SUBSIDY.

Commander BELLAIRS: 25.
asked the Minister of Health what action he proposes to take in regard to houses affected by the termination of the subsidy in the case of houses which have not been completed because of shortage or delays

in delivery; and whether there has been any tendency for prices to increase in view of builders being compelled to obtain their supplies in order to complete their houses before the termination of the subsidy?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not yet in a position to add to the replies which were given to questions on housing subsidy which were addressed to me by the hon. Members for Shipley and Middlesbrough West on the 16th and 23rd ultimo, respectively. I will, however, bear in mind the hon. and gallant Member's point in the event of an Order being made modifying the present subsidy. 'With regard to the last part of the question, I have no evidence that there has been a tendency for prices to increase for the reason referred to in the question.

Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that in these cases a special price is not put in the agreement the house is to be sold for after the subsidy has been granted?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We have no power to prevent the prices being put on.

DIRECTOR OF HOUSING.

Mr. FORREST: 27.
asked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to appoint a new director of housing, in view of the resignation of the present director; and, if not, what arrangements are to be made for the discharge of the duties which this official has hitherto carried out?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Arrangements will be made whereby the duties hitherto carried out
by the Director of Housing will be assigned to the permanent official in charge of the Housing Division.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

STATIONERY OFFICE.

Mr. J. HUDSON: 34.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the annual cost of maintaining the branch of the Stationery Office in Abingdon Street; what is the annual value of the publications sold or distributed therefrom; and what economy is likely to be effected by transferring this work to Kingsway?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I would refer the hon. Member to page 154 of the annual volume of Trading Accounts (House of Commons Paper 50 of 1926).

Mr. E. ALEXANDER: 36.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that, in response to the appeal of the Government for stereotypers during the general strike, Mr. Horace Barnard, a director of Hunt, Barnard, and Company, Limited, of Blandford Street, Will, induced one of their employés, Mr. Alfred Still, to offer his services temporarily to the Government; that Still is a skilled man who had been in the service of Messrs. Hunt, Barnard for 26 years, and the firm had spent a considerable amount of money in tutoring him to various branches of the trade, and more especially stereotyping; that Still is remaining in the service of His Majesty's Stationery Office at Harrow, notwithstanding the protest of Messrs. Hunt, Barnard that he was only temporarily released from his contract of service to assist in the national emergency; that His Majesty's Stationery Office has urged that his contract of service with Messrs. Hunt, Barnard was broken by reason of Still being on short time, although Still voluntary acquiesced in this alteration necessitated by the general strike; and whether he will say why in these circumstances this man is being retained by the Stationery Office?

Mr. McNEILL: The man in question on offering himself for employment under the Stationery Office made no reference to any such arrangement with his employers as
that indicated in the first part of the question, but inquired as to the prospects of permanency. I cannot pronounce upon the legal question of his contractual relations with his former employers, but it is fair to add that the man contends that his contract of service terminated on his being placed on short time. I have no power to compel him to return to any particular firm, and there is nothing in the circumstances of the case to lead me to dismiss a man who volunteered during the recent emergency.

Mr. ALEXANDER: May I inquire whether the fact that the man's employer drew the attention of the Stationery Office to the fact that he had broken his contract does not call for some form of inquiry?

Mr. McNEILL: No, Sir, I do not think so.

PAYMENT OF MEMBERS (INCOME TAX REBATE).

Colonel APPLIN: 35.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the Regulations governing the conditions under which Members of this House are allowed rebate on Income Tax on their salaries as Members of Parliament; whether these conditions can be varied or interpreted by the Chief Inspector of Taxes or his subordinates without reference to this House; and if he will state who is the authority to determine what are the legitimate expenses of Members of Parliament upon which they are entitled to claim such rebate?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I assume that my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to the question of the expenses admissible as a deduction in the computation of Income Tax assessments in respect of the emoluments of Members of Parliament. This question is governed by the general provisions of the Income Tax Acts applying to all offices and employments.
Under Rule 9 of the Rules of Schedule E in the Income Tax Act, 1918, a deduction may be claimed for expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in the performance of the duties of an office. Under Rule 10 of those Rules, where the Treasury are satisfied with respect to any
class of persons in receipt of any salary, fees or emoluments payable out of the public revenue that such persons are obliged to lay out and expend money wholly, exclusively and necessarily in the performance of the duties in respect of which such salary, fees or emoluments are payable, the Treasury may fix such sum as, in their opinion, represents a fair equivalent of the average annual amount laid out and expended as aforesaid by persons of that class. In pursuance of this power, the Treasury have prescribed an allowance of £100 in the case of Members of Parliament. If a Member desires to claim an allowance in excess of that amount, he is furnished by the Paymaster-General with a form on which he may set out particulars of his expenses. The admissibility of any item claimed as a deduction depends, as I have already indicated, upon whether the expenditure can be held to be incurred wholly, necessarily and exclusively in the performance of the duties as a Member of Parliament. In the event of a Member being unable to agree with the Inland Revenue authorities as to the amount of his assessment, he has the right of appeal to the Special Commissioners of Income Tax, and, if dissatisfied with their decision as being erroneous in point of law, he can appeal to the Courts.

Colonel APPLIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House how hon. Members can convince the Treasury that these expenses are legitimate?

Mr. CHURCHILL: By the recognised processes of argument and persuasion.

FISHERIES (ANNUAL REPORT).

Mr. HARRISON: 39.
asked the Minister of Agriculture when the Annual Report on the work of the Fishery Department will be published?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The Report on Sea Fisheries for 1925 has been sent to the printers and will be published as soon as possible.

Mr. HARRISON: Is the Minister aware that 200 copies only of the last publication were sold to the public; and does he not think it desirable to reduce the price of this publication, which deals with
a technical subject and is written in the most attractive style, by bearing part of the cost of publication on the Votes of the Department?

Mr. GUINNESS: I will look into that suggestion.

SUGAR-BEET FACTORIES (SHARE CAPITAL).

Mr. FORREST: 40.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the total capital of the sugar-beet factories in Great Britain which are receiving the subsidy; and how much of this capital has been issued?

Mr. GUINNESS: The nominal share capital of the companies which operated beet-sugar factories last season is £2,845,000. Of this sum, £2,500,507 has been issued.

Mr. FORREST: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much of this capital is held by British subjects?

Mr. GUINNESS: I think about £1,500,000 is held by British shareholders, and about £1,000,000 by foreign.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

PENSION CLAIMS (APPEALS).

Mr. HORE-BEL1SHA: 42.
asked the Secretary of State for Air how many men invalided from the service in 1925, and denied pensions on the ground of non-attributability, appealed to the Air Ministry against the original decision; and in how many cases was the decision modified?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given him, in response to a similar question on the 24th June last.

MACHINES (SPEEDS).

Captain. GARRO-JONES: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for Air the comparative maximum speeds in 1918 and at the present time of the best types of machines used as single-seater scouts, Army co operation machines and two-seater fighters, respectively?

Sir P. SASSOON: I regret that it would not be in the public interest to give the information requested by the hon. and gallant Member.

ESTIMATES COMMITTEE.

Lieut.-Colonel VIVIAN HENDERSON: 45
asked the Prime Minister whether he has as yet had an opportunity of considering the first Report of the Estimates Committee this Session; and, if so, what action, if any, the Government propose to take in regard to the Committee's recommendations as to the reclassification and regrouping of the Estimates; as to the future size and composition of the Committee; as to discussion of the Committee's Reports on Supply days; and as to the present limits of discussion when the main Estimates are under consideration, respectively?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): Yes, Sir. The Government accept the recommendations of the Select Committee in regard to the reclassification and regrouping of Estimates and they will give effect to them, subject to some minor emendations, in next year's Estimates. The Government do not see their way to adopt the recommendations as to the future size and composition of the Committee. It appears to them that the Committee should aim at reviewing a group of Estimates each year so as to cover the full field every four or five years and should endeavour as far as possible to complete this review before the particular group are finally disposed of in Supply. This they consider the Committee should be able to do without additional members or special facilities In particular, they do not consider that persons outside the House should be appointed to serve on Sub-Committees, but they are prepared to arrange that a Treasury witness should attend the meetings of the Committee, and assist them so far as he can.
The Government are not prepared to ask the House to accept the recommendations referred to in the last two parts of the question.
If it be the general desire of the House to discuss the Reports of the Estimates Committee on any occasion, arrangements can, no doubt, be made through the usual channels. The adoption of the recommendation relating to the limits of discussion on the Estimate of a Department, to include references to the services rendered to it by other Departments, would involve a great departure in the present procedure in Committee
of Supply, and might lead to the same question being discussed on several Votes instead of on the one Vote of the responsible office.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: May I ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the "established usage" contained in Chapter 18 of Erskine May, in which it is pointed out that
important changes in. the customary form of the Estimates should not be made without the previous approval of the Public Accounts Committee,
and whether his answer proposes a departure from that customary usage?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have had the advantage of reading that paragraph within the last quarter of an hour, and the bon. Member will recollect that the phrase used in that paragraph is "the customary form." I am advised that such changes as are contemplated here do not conflict with that passage. I am glad the question was asked, because it gives me the opportunity of saying that my right hon. Friend, before any changes are formulated, will take the opportunity of discussing the matter with the Public Accounts Committee and the Estimates. Committee.

Commander BELLAIRS: As a counterproposal, may I suggest that the Estimates Committee should be reduced to about five members, and should appoint their own Sub-Committees?

The PRIME MINISTER: This is rather short notice for a question of that kind, but doubtless any proposal put to my right hon. Friend will receive consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

ORDER OF BUSINESS.

Mr. H. GUEST: 46.
asked the Prime Minister what subjects will be considered by the Imperial Conference which is to meet in October next; what will be the dates of meeting and the order of business; and what will be the probable duration of the Conference?

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether the agenda for the Imperial Conference has been drawn up; and, if so, what subjects it is proposed to discuss?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. The date proposed for the opening of the Conference is 5th October. As to the agenda for the Conference, it has been agreed (that, as in the past, its work should include a general review of foreign policy and defence, and of the questions to which they give rise, and that it should consider the development of the system of communication and consultation between the Governments of the Empire on matters of common concern.
The following are the chief economic questions which will be on the agenda:

(1) Oversea settlement.
(2) A general review of inter-Imperial trade, present and future, including a discussion of the work of the Imperial Economic Committee and the position of the Empire Marketing Board.
(3) Communications, under which head will be included the work of the Imperial Shipping Committee and the question of commercial air services.
(4) Research.
(5) The exhibition within the Empire of Empire films.
(6) The question of securing agreement as to the liability of State enterprises to taxation.

Mr. GUEST: Will there be an opportunity for the representation of Opposition opinion as well as Government opinion at the Imperial Conference, in view of the situation in South Africa Canada and this country at the present time?

The PRIME MINISTER: The only difficulty in regard to that is that the Imperial Conference has always been a conference of Governments, and no provision has been made for the official representation of Oppositions, either in the Dominions or in the country convening the Conference.

Mr. GUEST: With regard to overseas 'settlement, will there be any investigation into the land available in the Dominions in connection with that particular question?

The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question to the Secretary of State for the Dominions. I cannot answer it.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is the date, 5th October, likely to be altered because of any conditions which exist in any of these Dominions?

The PRIME MINISTER: I could not answer that question at present.

Mr. THURTLE: Will this Conference discuss the powers of Governors-General with regard to the dissolution of Dominion Parliaments?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have not had any notice that that subject will be discussed.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: May I inquire whether Members of this House or of the general public will be allowed to attend the Conference?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have not considered that question. It has never been done yet.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the. Prime Minister consider that, as far as Australia and this country are concerned, the Governments do not represent a majority of the voters?

The PRIME MINISTER: That does not prevent them being Governments.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

STEAM-DRIYEN VEHICLES.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 47.
asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the number of steam-driven vehicles habitually poisoning the atmosphere of the streets of London with clouds of black smoke; and whether, as such vehicles slowly parading before blocks of traffic are a menace to the health and cleanliness of passengers, he will say what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to reply. Complaints have been received as to the nuisance caused by the emission of smoke from steam road vehicles. The matter can be dealt with under the existing law. Light locomotives must, under Section 1 of the Locomotives on Highways Act, 1896, be so constructed that no smoke or visible vapour is emitted except from a temporary or accidental cause. Heavy locomotives come under Section 30 of the Highways
and Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878, which provides that such vehicles must be constructed to consume, as far as practicable, their own smoke. The enforcement of the law is a matter for the police.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the police do enforce those Regulations, because the smoke is not consumed? That is my contention, and that is the question. Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the police carry out those instructions and stop this nuisance?

Colonel ASHLEY: I will convey the substance of the hon. Member's remarks to the Home Secretary.

Mr. MARCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman pass on to the police the information that if they go to Commercial Road they can get six cases every morning?

OMNIBUSES (SAFETY DEVICES).

Colonel APPLIN: 60.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that a fatal accident occurred on Monday night outside this House when an omnibus ran over and killed a cyclist who was crushed beneath the omnibus; and whether, in view of the number of fatal accidents of this nature, he will take immediate steps, by Regulation of legislation, to compel all omnibuses in the Metropolitan area to provide guards or fenders on the front of the vehicles to prevent persons accidentally knocked down from being crushed beneath?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have been asked to reply to this question. If a satisfactory device could be found, the Commissioner would be glad to make its use compulsory. I am advised that there are many technical difficulties in the application of a front guard to an omnibus. It is essential that any device so fitted should be reliable and free from danger, and, up to the present, though many inventions have been tested, none has proved effective in all respects.

Mr. BUCHANAN: If the right hon. Gentleman decides to carry out any alteration, will it apply all over the country as well as in London?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Commissioner of Police has only power over London, and I have no power. It will
rest with the Watch Committees in the separate districts throughout the country.

Colonel APPLIN: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider a simple device, such as is now being used on motor cars, which would at least throw the person clear of the omnibus when he was struck?

Mr. MARCH: And under another!

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will ask the Commissioner of Police whether his attention has been called to that particular device.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS (BRITISH DELEGATION).

Mr. J. HUDSON: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the desirability of giving to members of the British delegation at the next Assembly of the League of Nations adequate time for preparation, he will proceed immediately to the nomination of the delegation and the preparation of instructions?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope to be in a position to announce the names of the delegation on Monday next.

AMATEUR AIRMEN (INSURANCE).

Captain GARRO-JONES: 50.
asked the Secretary of State far Air whether he is aware that the main deterrent to large numbers of potential amateur flying men is not only the first costs but the fear of accidents to their machine and of consequent upkeep costs; what would be the cost of providing an all-in insurance policy, covering pilot, machine, and third parties, for a period of 12 months; and whether he has considered the practicability of offering to defray the whole or part of such insurance costs in the case of pilots who have first qualified at an approved school?

Sir P. SASSOON: As the answer is rather long, I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply.

As regards the first part of the question, the information at the disposal of the Air Ministry is by no means conclusive that the main deterrent to private
flying is that stated by the hon. and gallant Member; but I do not doubt that the question of upkeep and, in particular, of possible liability in case of accident must weigh to a considerable extent with potential pilots. As regards the second part, I have made inquiries of the British Aviation Insurance Group and understand that it would not be possible for the insurance companies to adopt a flat comprehensive insurance scheme of the kind suggested. The rate of premium would depend necessarily upon the applicant's flying record, the amount and nature of the flying which he intended to carry out, the type of aircraft to be flown, the locality, and other variable factors. As regards the last part, I am ready to consider any proposal designed to encourage private flying, but I feel grave doubts as to the practicability of adopting the particular suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member.

COLONIES (DEFENCE FORCES).

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 51.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in how many States of the British Empire military conscription obtains, the names of these States, the terms, and the people involved in this conscription?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): Ceylon Ordinance No. 42 of 1916 prescribes that every European male resident in the Colony between certain ages must enrol in the local Defence Force. Fijian Defence Force Ordinance No. 3 of 1923 contains similar provisions. It has already been explained, in reply to a question regarding the European Defence Force Ordinance of the Colony and Protectorate of Kenya, that that Ordinance has not yet been received, but an undertaking has been given to place a copy in the Library. Apart from the above, there is no similar legislation in other non-self-governing Dependencies. The hon. Member addressed the question to my right hon. Friend in his capacity as Secretary of State for the Colonies. He will no doubt address a further question if he requires information in regard to those self-governing Dominions where compulsory military training is in force in different forms.

Mr. HARRIS: As conscription is against the traditions of this country, could the hon. Member promise to give us an opportunity, where conscription is introduced by ordinances in non-self-governing Colonies, for this House to discuss those ordinances?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: They have been in force some time, and they can be discussed on the Colonial Office Estimates, but to describe this as the raising of a permanent conscript army is a mistake. It is rather a reserve force in mixed communities in cases of emergency.

Mr. HARRIS: Will they provide for conscientious objectors? Will people be allowed to refuse to serve?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I do not think that that appears in either of the two existing ordinances.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA.

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT INQUIRY.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 52.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can yet state either the terms of reference or the composition of the Commission of Inquiry into local government in Kenya?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No, Sir; until my right hon. Friend has received the Governor's despatch containing his proposals I can add nothing to what my right hon. Friend has already said in reply to previous questions on this matter.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the hon. Gentleman give us the terms of reference?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No. We have not yet had any indication as to what they are.

MILITARY TRAINING.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 53.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what length of annual training is proposed for the military conscription in Kenya, and in whose charge the rifles will remain between the trainings?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: My right hon. Friend has not yet received a copy of the Ordinance. Under the latest proposals which he has seen, no definite annual training is laid down, but the
period of training, etc., is not to exceed in any one year a number of days which was to be inserted an final enactment. The issue and care of arms is to be a matter for regulations to be made by the Governor. A copy of the Ordinance, when received, will be placed in the Library.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that this compulsory service in Kenya really means just supplying rifles to the settlers?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No, I certainly do not think so. As a matter of fact they have all got rifles already.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: But surely under this Ordinance they will acquire and require uniform rifles.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That remains to be seen.

Colonel CROOKSHANK: Is it not a fact that this is really only a form of special constabulary?

IRAQ (LAND TAXATION RE-ASSESSMENT).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 54.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he will obtain from the Government of Iraq particulars of the re-assessment to taxation of the date-bearing and other lands that has been recently undertaken with a view to stimulating production; and will he give the name of the British official responsible for this change?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: My right hon. Friend has received no Report on the subject. Any fiscal changes introduced in Iraq would, of course, be made on the responsibility of the Iraq Government, and not of any individual British officer.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has not the hon. Gentleman seen the account of this change in the "Times," and would it not be possible, in these circumstances, to have a Report from the Iraq Government?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: A Report will certainly be sent in due course

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 55.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he has received any proposals from British Dominions for reciprocal pensions under Section 33 of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925 and if he has any statement to make on the question of reciprocal pensions?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No such proposals have yet been received, but I would refer my hon. Friend to the recommendation on the subject in the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee appointed to consider the effect on migration of schemes of social insurance. Copies of that Report have been forwarded to Dominion Governments, and it is contemplated that these recommendations should be amongst the subjects discussed at the Imperial Conference.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BRITISH TRADE (RETURNS).

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 56.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the figures issued by his Department at various times of British exports and re-exports to Russia include the administrative charges, and the shipping, banking and insurance charges of the trading organisations established in Great Britain by the Russian Government?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The official returns of the values of goods exported from the United Kingdom (including re-exports) represent the declared value of the goods "free on board" ship at the port of exportation, and should, therefore, cover all charges up to the placing of the goods on shipboard, and no charges in respect of subsequent handling, conveyance, etc.

MR. J. MARTIN (ARREST).

Mr. PALING: 64.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Mr. J. Martin was arrested by the Soviet Government prior to or subsequent to the landing of armed British forces either at Archangel, Murmansk or Vladivostok; and whether Mr. Martin contracted the attack of spotted typhus fever to which he attributes his blindness before or after
the date on which all interference by British naval forces with cargoes consigned to Soviet Russia ceased?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): Mr. Joseph Martin was arrested by the Soviet authorities on the 7th November, 1919, or some 16 months subsequent to the landing of the British Expeditionary Forces at Murmansk. I am unaware of the exact date when he contracted typhus fever, but it occurred during his imprisonment, which lasted from the 7th November, 1919, to the 6th March, 1920. The decision of the Supreme Council, permitting the resumption of trade with Russia, was dated the 16th January, 1920.

Mr. PALING: Is it the fact that the blockade was in existence during Mr. Martin's imprisonment?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I should require notice of that question.

Mr. THURTLE: Does not this answer tend to show that the primary responsibility for the disability from which Mr. Martin is now suffering rests with His Majesty's Government?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No, Sir.

Mr. HADEN GUEST: Is it the case that Mr. Martin's blindness was caused by an attack of spotted fever, as conveyed in this question

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I believe his blindness was brought on by that disease.

Mr. PALING: Is it not also admitted that had medicines, etc., been at hand to treat Mr. Martin, his blindness might have been averted?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not think so

COMPANIES ACTS.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 57.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether and, if so, when, he intends to propose legislation for giving effect to the findings of the Departmental Committee on the Companies Acts

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I hope that it may be possible to introduce a Bill next year.

WAGES (ANNUAL REDUCTION).

Mr. AMMON: 62.
asked the Minister of Labour the yearly reduction in wages for each year since 1919 and for the present year as far as statistics are available?

Sir H. BARNSTON: I have been asked to reply. Figures for the years 1919–1925, with the necessary notes of the various qualifications to which they are subject, are given in the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" for April of this year, to which I would refer the hon. Member. Figures for the first five months of 1926 are given in the "Gazette" for June.

ROYAL ARTILLERY ARTIFICERS (PROMOTION).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 63.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he can now say what decisions have been reached, and what changes will be made, as a result of the recommendations of the Committee appointed to consider the question of promotion of artificers in the Royal Artillery?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): I am not yet in a position to add anything to the replies which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member on 15th June and 6th July. The questions on which decisions are required are of considerable complexity, and involve serious financial considerations, but I hope to be able to give the hon. Member some definite information on the matter within the next few weeks.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

VISITORS TO SHIPS, PLYMOUTH.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 65.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, with reference to the annual coast tour of the Atlantic Fleet, whether he is aware of the grievance felt among the people of Plymouth that, while the ships are open to visitors to the seaside .at various places, those most intimately associated with the ships, both in materiel and personnel, rarely, if ever, have an opportunity of going aboard them, since, when in port, the ships are usually undergoing repairs and the reception of visitors on board in large numbers would, in con-
sequence, be inconvenient; and whether he will give his consideration to a suggestion for as many of the ships as conveniently can be accommodated to assemble in Plymouth Sound two days before they would return to their borne ports according to their usual programme, and for one or more of several types to be open to receive visitors for a few hours each day?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): Devonport-manned ships of the Atlantic Fleet are usually at Devonport giving leave for approximately three months in the year, during one month of which period they are usually refitting. For the remaining two months the vessels are in a suitable condition to receive visitors, and it is open to any bona fide British subject to seek permission from the commanding officer to visit any one of the ships. Such permission would not ordinarily be withheld.

HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "KING GEORGE V."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 66.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what ratings are at present training on board His Majesty's ship "King George V" or have been training on board that ship; bow it is proposed to train these ratings after His Majesty's ship "King George V" is paid off: and whether another sea-going vessel is to be made available to continue this training or whether the ratings are to be trained elsewhere than on board a sea-going ship of war?

Mr. DAVIDSON: About 350 boys have been training on "King George V." As this vessel has to be broken up under the Washington Agreement, her allocation for this duty was only a temporary arrangement. Those of her boys whose training is incomplete are being absorbed in "Impregnable," as it is not the present intention to replace "King George V" by another sea-going ship of war.

BRITISH-GERMAN AIR TRAFFIC.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA (for Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY): 43.
asked the Secretary of State for Air what progress has been made with the negotiations for the proposed British-German air traffic
agreement; whether British commercial aircraft are now permitted to fly freely over German territory; and what progress has been made with the British air line from London to Prague?

Sir P. SASSOON: As regards the first part of the question, the draft of a new British-German air traffic agreement has been prepared, and will shortly be ready for reference to the German authorities for their consideration. As regards the second part, pending the negotiation of this agreement, permission to operate the British air services to Berlin and Cologne has been extended to 31st December, but any other flights into or over Germany would have to be specially authorised. As regards the last part, provisional proposals for an air services between Cologne and Prague have recently been formulated as a result of discussions between British and Czechoslovakian representatives, and are now under consideration by the Czechoslovakian Government.

Commander BELLAIRS: Could my hon. Friend state who conducts these negotiations—whether the Air Ministry conduct them directly, or whether they are conducted by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs?

Sir P. SASSOON: It depends entirely on the negotiations.

Commander BELLAIRS: I do not understand that answer.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Will the Prime Minister say what business he proposes to take next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday we shall take Supply, the Treasury Vote, on which a discussion on Inter-Allied Debts will take place.
Tuesday: Supply—India Office Vote.
Wednesday: Third Reading of the Finance Bill until 8.15 p.m. Committee stage of the Palestine and East Africa Loans (Guarantee) (Money Resolution), and Committee stage of the Expiring Laws Bill.
Thursday: Report and Third Reading of the Mining Industry Bill. If that Bill is not reported from the Committee upstairs in time to be taken on Thursday, we shall take Supply.
The business for Friday will be announced later.
If time permit, on any day next week, we shall make progress with other Orders on the Paper.

Mr. MacDONALD: With regard to the Third Beading of the Finance Bill up to 8.15, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a good deal to be said on general financial policy, and that 8.15 is hardly the arrangement that has been made? Further, does he really propose to take the Report and Third Reading of the Mining Industry Bill on the same day?

The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the first point, I understood that was the arrangement, and in the same way with regard to the business for Thursday. If it is not considered sufficient time—it must depend rather on the condition in

which the Bill comes downstairs—renewed consultation might take place.

Mr. HARRIS: I wish to ask a question of general interest to the whole House. Is the Prime Minister aware of the growing practice of Standing Committees sitting iii the afternoon between 4 and 6 o'clock, which prevents Members taking their place—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member submitted that question to me, and I ruled that it was not in order.

Mr. HARRIS: I received a message through your Secretary, Sir, informing me that the question should be addressed to the Prime Minister. I received that message yesterday afternoon.

Mr. SPEAKER: The question required amending in form.

Motion made, and Question put:
That the proceedings on the Finance Bill have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 105.

Division No. 371.]
AYES.
[3.45 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)


Albery, Irving James
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Fanshawe Commander G. D.


Apsley, Lord
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Fermoy, Lord


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Charterls, Brigadier-General J.
Fielden. E. B.


Atholl, Duchess of
Christie, J. A.
Finburgh, S.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Ford, Sir P. J.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Forestier-Waiker, Sir L.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Clarry, Reginald George
Forrest, W.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Clayton, G. C.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Bellaire, Commander Canyon W.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Frece, Sir Walter de


Bennett, A. J.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.


Betterton, Henry B.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Bird, E. R (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Ganzonl, Sir John


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Colfox, Major Wm. Philip
Gates, Percy


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Cooper, A. Duff
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Blundell, F. N.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Goff Sir Park


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Gower. Sir Robert


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Gratton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Brass, Captain W.
Crookshank, Col.H.(Lindsey,Galnsbro)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Waiter E.


Briggs, J. Harold
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Briscoe, Richard George
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd,Hemel Hempst'd)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hannon. Patrick Joseph Henry


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Davies, MaJ. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Brown, Brig Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Harrison, G. J. C.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Drewe, C.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Bullock, Captain M.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hasiam, Henry C.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hawke, John Anthony


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Headiam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Ellis, R. G.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Campbell, E. T.
England, Colonel A.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Erskine, Lord (Somers t,Weston-s-M)
Herbert, S. (York, N.H., Scar. & Wh'by)


Hilton, Cecil
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Smithers, Waldron


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St.Marylebone)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Holt, Captain H. P.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Murchison, C. K.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland,Whiteh'n)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sugden, sir Wilfrid


Hunting field , Lord
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Hurd, Percy A.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Templeton, W. p.


Hutchison,G.A.Clark(Midl'n & P'bl's)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Nuttall, Ellis
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Jacob, A. E.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Jephcott, A. R.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Tinne, J. A.


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


King, Captain Henry Douglas Douglas
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Pllditch, Sir Philip
Waddington, R.


Lamb, J. Q.
Preston, William
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Raine, W.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Ramsden, E.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Locker Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Loder, J. de V.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Watts, Dr. T.


Looker, Herbert William
Remnant, Sir James
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Rice, Sir Frederick
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ropner, Major L.
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R.,Richm'd)


Macintyre, Ian
Ruggles-Brlse, Major E. A.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


McLean, Major A.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Macmillan, Captain H.
Salmon, Major I.
Wise, Sir Fredric


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Macquisten, F. A.
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D
Wragg, Herbert


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Savery, S. S.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T


Margesson, Captain D.
Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)



Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Slmms, Or. John M. (Co. Down)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Meyer, Sir Frank
Skelton, A. N.
Major Sir Harry Barnston and


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Major Cope.


Mitchell. S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)



NOES.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Grundy, T. W.
Pethick Lawrence, F. W.


Ammon, Charles George
Guest, Haden (Southwark. N.)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)
Potts, John S


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hardle, George D.
Riley, Ben


Barr, J.
Harney, E. A.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)


Batey, Joseph
Harris, Percy A.
Salter, Dr, Alfred


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hartshorn. Rt. Hon. Vernon
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Broad, F. A.
Hirst, G. H.
Sitch, Charles H.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Buchanan, G.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Cape, Thomas
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Snell, Harry


Charleton, H. C.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Spencer. G. A. (Broxtowe)


Cluse, W. S.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stamford, T. W.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stephen, Campbell


Compton, Joseph
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sullivan, J.


Cove, W. G.
Kelly, W. T.
Sutton, J. E.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kennedy, T.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Dalton, Hugh
Kirkwood, D.
Thurtle, E.


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Lawrence, Susan
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies. Rhys John (Westhouphton)
Lawson, John James
Townend, A. E.


Day, Colonel Harry
Lee, F.
Viant, S. P.


Dennison, R.
Livingstone, A. M.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dunnico, H.
Lowth, T.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lunn, William
Webb, Rt. Han. Sidney


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Gardner, J. P.
Mackinder, W.
Welsh, J. C.


Gibbins, Joseph
MacLaren, Andrew
Westwood, J.


Gillett, George M.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Whiteley, W.


Gosling, Harry
March, S.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Montague, Frederick
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenall, T.
Murnin, H.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Naylor, T. E.



Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Palln, John Henry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Groves, T.
Paling, W.
Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Haves.

BILLS REPORTED.

Mexborough and Swinton Tramways Bill [Lords],

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, arid to be printed. Scottish Widows' Fund and Life Assurance Society Bill [Lords],

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

West Hampshire Water Bill [Lords],

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

London County Council (General Powers) Bill,

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,

Boards of Guardians (Default) Bill,

Piers and Harbour Provisional Order Bill,

Pontefract Corporation Bill, without Amendment.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 5) Bill,

Mynyddislwyn Urban District Council Bill,

Bolton Corporation Bill,

Great Western Railway Bill,

Southern Railway Bill,

London Electric and Metropolitan District Railway Companies Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make further provision with respect to the University of London." [University of London Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Edinburgh Corporation (Streets, Buildings, and Sewers)." [Edinburgh Corporation (Streets, Buildings, and Sewers) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]

EDINBURGH CORPORATION (STREETS, BUILDINGS, AND SEWERS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Private Legisla-
tion Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 159.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 5) BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL.

As amended, further considered.

CLAUSE 11.—(Customs Duty on wrapping paper.)

Mr. LEES-SMITH: Will you follow your usual practice, Mr. Speaker, of indicating the procedure which you intend to adopt on this Clause? I think the procedure that will be convenient to us would be to have a general discussion on .an early Amendment, and then take the further Amendments at a later stage.

Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that Members of the House are under an agreement to finish this stage of the Bill by about 12 o'clock. It will be my endeavour not to pass over any Amendments. That procedure will entail the cooperation of hon. Members, in the form of brevity. I propose, both on Clause 11 and on Clause 15, to take the first Amendment, to leave out the Clause, which will permit of some general discussion on principle. In putting the Question, I shall protect the other Amendments on the Paper. From the number of Amendments that are set down, it will require concentration on the part of the House, in order to deal with the whole of the points.

Mr. GILLETT: I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.
Hon. Members who were present when the Bill was in Committee will remember that when we came to this Clause it was fathered by the hon. Member for East Dorset (Mr. Caine) who gave us an interesting account of his personal connection with the industry, and also some interesting details of the wrapping paper problem. The thing that struck me in connection with the hon. Member making a statement of that kind, was that almost any hon. Member connected with any similar industry could get up in the House and put forward a case for special privilege in regard to the safeguarding of the industry, if it had to be based upon evidence as slender as that which was given by the hon. Member. The Minister seemed to be depending very largely upon the hon. Member for support of the case. Since then, I have received a communica-
tion from certain gentlemen who claim to speak for several paper manufacturing companies, who give a distinct negative to some of the statements made by the Minister. No doubt the Minister has seen the communication from these gentlemen, who claim to speak for certain companies.
Among the points that the Minister made, was one dealing with the manufacture of corrugated paper from straw. He made a very patriotic gesture, and said that he preferred to have the paper made from English straw rather than from straw that came from Holland. I hope that when he replies to-day he will give an answer to the position adopted by the writers of the letter which has been sent to us, because they definitely state that there is no choice to be made, because none of this paper is manufactured in this country. In another connection, they seem to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, and in that regard an explanation from him would be useful, because a complaint has been made that those who are specially interested in this class of paper have had no chance of placing their case before the Committee. The Minister said that it was taken for granted that anyone who wanted to place their views before the Committee could do so, but the writers of this communication distinctly state that when they sought to do that, they were told by telephone from the Board of Trade that this paper was not to be included in the list of papers to be scheduled for duty, and, therefore, they did not trouble to appear. Now, that the kind of paper in which they are specially interested has been included, they are aggrieved. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can give us some explanation on that point. Another point they mention is, that when the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson) claimed that a group of manufacturers were in opposition to the duty, he was told by the right hon. Gentleman that that was not so. The representatives of these branches of manufacture came to see the Minister to represent their views, yet when the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth made his statement here, the right hon. Gentleman told him that he was quite mistaken, that there was this opposition from a majority of the manufacturers of this special class of paper.
4.0 P.M.
In one or two cases the argument for introducing this duty is based on certain figures, but with great truthfulness the Committee themselves state that the figures are so difficult to obtain that they are practically untrustworthy, and, strange to say, although they say the figures are of little value, they use those very figures as part of the argument in support of their case for recommending a duty. It seems to me an extraordinary thing to find a case supported in such a manner. On page 10 of the Report I notice a strange reference to the position of Germany, The competition of Germany is one of the factors in connection with this industry, and reference is made to the alteration in the German situation when Germany's advantage of a depreciated currency came to an end and they found themselves with their currency on a stable basis. That naturally has had an effect on the industry, and the amount of paper coming from Germany has decreased. The Committee, however, go on to say, without a word of evidence to support it, that times may change and that more paper may be coming in again from Germany. But why should that be so? Everybody who knows Germany knows that seemingly her monetary difficulties are at an end. There has been a rise in wages there, and I cannot imagine that there is going to be a fall in those wages. Yet a statement of this kind is just put forward, without any argument to support it, and on that statement the Committee cheerfully pass on their way and think they have proved something in connection with competition from Germany.
There is another rather extraordinary case, where they refer, in the first Appendix, to some figures dealing with the number of persons employed in the industry. If you want an industry in this country safeguarded, you have to prove that it is an industry of substantial importance, and one of the considerations is that there should be a considerable number of people employed in it. The Committee give the figures from 1920 to 1924, and they point out that there has been a decrease during that period in the number of persons employed, but if hon. Members will look at the figures given, and compare the output with the number of persons employed, they will see an extraordinary state of affairs,
especially if they ignore the first year, where the output seems to have been enormous, compared with the number of people employed. In 1921, the number employed was 5,049, and the output of paper was roughly 71,000 tons, but in 1924 the number employed was 4,352, but the output was much larger, although the number of people employed was smaller than 1921. The supposition is that, whether by machinery or in some other way, there had been an improvement in the methods used, so that a smaller number of people could do the work that was being done previously by a larger number. I am not sufficiently acquainted with the trade to say whether or not that 'was the case. My argument, however, is that the Committee base their case directly on the number of people employed, and if we are going to do that, and to ignore questions such as the improvement of machinery and the consequent increase of output, I do not think it is quite a fair argument.
Several pages of the Report are taken up with an account of the wage position in other countries, but I think the whole of the wage position ought to be considered in the light of the new views that are now being held on the whole question of wages. It used to be held that if you had men paid at a lower wage in one country as compared with another country, that was a misfortune for those who were employing the higher paid men, but it is hardly needful to remind the House of the reports which have recently come from America, drawing attention to the close connection between high wages and industrial prosperity. Therefore, it seems to me that, when we look at these figures, we have to ask ourselves whether the fundamental argument on which they are based is correct and whether an industry that is paying low wages is necessarily in a better condition than an industry which is paying high wages. Certainly the position of the United States of America does not seem in any way to justify the old ideas on that question. As I have said, one of the points that has to be proved before an industry can be safeguarded is that it is an industry of substantial importance, but it all depends on what you mean by "substantial ,importance." You have here an industry employing about 70,000 people and a capital of about
£5,000,000 in machinery alone, and we are also told the number of companies that are interested in the industry, but I do not know what is really meant by "substantial importance." The only point which I think can finally settle the question is the one that comes up later, and that is a comparison with other industries affected by giving a special privilege to this industry.
In regard to the question of exceptional competition, if you take the pre-War year of 1913 and compare it with the year 1925, although I know there have been variations in between, you will find that there has been hardly any increase at all, as compared with the pre-War position, in the amount of these goads imported into this country. The figures are 201,000 tons in 1913 and 216,000 tons in 1925. Therefore, you cannot say that is exceptional competition if you take those figures and try to base an argument on an increase as small as that. I understand that the question of unfair competition is not based so much on the question of the exchanges, and the Committee have very wisely shifted their ground from that position, because the three countries most affected are Sweden, Germany, and Norway. Of course, the Swedish exchange has not been of any advantage to the Swedish exporters. At present it is practically at par. The position in Germany is much the same, and the position in Norway, although it is some advantage to the Norwegians, certainly is nothing to compare with the position in countries like France and Belgium. There is also the question of the reasonable efficiency of the industry in this country, but there I did not gain much from the Report of the Committee, as it does not go very fully into that question.
If you look at the whole of the case built up so far on the points I have mentioned—namely, a small industry to start with, an industry that you cannot say is meeting very severe competition from the Continent, and an industry that certainly is not suffering to any great extent from the position of the exchanges, the whole case for the duty really comes down to the effect on other industries of safeguarding this industry. There, it seems to me, taking into account the vastly greater interests concerned in
the other industries, that the case, feeble as it is, finally collapses. You find something like 20 other important manufacturing interests, employing 400,000 people, that in some ways would be affected prejudicially, it may be only to a. slight extent, by the passing of this Clause. There are many industries which are using the paper on which we are going to put a duty as the raw material of their manufacture. There are envelope makers and others, but the chief case made during the Committee stage of this Clause was that made by the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott), who dealt with the case of the confectionery and chocolate makers. I do not want to go over the figures that he gave, but
I would remind House that opposition has been raised to this duty by those interested in the confectionery and chocolate trades. I have had representations made to me from two industries at least in the constituency that I represent, and, as the hon. Member for York said, this question affects indirectly something like 400,000 workers, and it will have an effect on the imports of chocolates from abroad. Therefore, you arrive at a very peculiar position.
Hon. Members opposite argue that you should not purchase goods from other countries, but, as the hon. Member for York pointed out, you finally arrive at this position: If a manufacturing firm, say, in my constituency buy their paper from abroad, as the Bill now stands, if they buy it in bulk, they will have to pay a duty on the paper, but if the same paper is used by some firm that is manufacturing in another country, say, France, for wrapping up their goods, and the paper comes in in small pieces wrapped round chocolates, for instance, that paper is going to be exempted from duty. The result is that the manufacturer in this country who is buying paper in bulk pays a duty, but the manufacturer in other countries does not, simply because the paper is coming in in such small quantities that it is impossible to find out exactly what the duty should be. As the hon. Member for York pointed out, it does leave the whole question in a somewhat peculiar position. I did not gather that any answer was made to the hon. Member for York. All he was told was that nothing could be done and he must be satisfied with that. As far as I know the hon. Member is satisfied whether the
large interests connected with this industry in his constituency are equally satisfied is not a matter for me to judge.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: I must not interrupt the hon. Member, who has been good enough to quote largely from a speech I made in Committee, but he must not assume that I am satisfied.

Mr. GILLETT: I am glad to hear the hon. Member is not satisfied, and I hope he will show his dissatisfaction this afternoon in supporting the Amendment I am now moving, which will solve the whole problem. I only take this as an illustration, because the hon. Member placed his facts clearly before the Committee, and it only represents the effect of this legislation upon other industries. To my mind it is an absolute condemnation of the whole of the proposals. Anyone who is trading with France, Germany or Belgium has only to say that he is trading with France, and that settles one part. Then if there is so much money in the industry that settles part number two, and the Committee which investigated these cases would really, I think, be satisfied with any evidence that was brought before them. You have only to put up certain figures, which are untrustworthy, but they are good enough for the Committee. If you take one industry alone and apply a little piece of protection then it is going to be beneficial to that industry as against all other industries which have no protection at all. The people employed in the trade will be benefited as compared with many other trades indirectly associated with it. If you take out two or three trades and give a privilege to them you can prove that it is a benefit to those particular trades, but the Committee have entirely failed to consider whether in giving this favour to a limited number of people they are not going to injure a number of other trades. The selection of small trades and giving them a preference is thoroughly pernicious, and in this case it is not proved that the interests of those concerned in the paper-wrapping industry have been considered as against those interested in the far larger industies and the effect it is going to have on them.

Mr. MACKINDER: a beg to second the Amendment.
I desire to enter my most emphatic protest that Members of this House, who are charged with the duty of passing legis-
lation which may be for the good or ill of industries in general, who are asked to consider questions affecting industry as a whole, are not able to have access to the evidence given in support of these particular proposals. We get a small Report, like the one which has been issued, largely written with the intention of bearing out the conclusions arrived at. It is a purely ex parte statement, and on the slender evidence given in these pages hon. Members are asked to give decisions which affect hundreds and thousands of workers in the country and millions of the population. We ought not to be asked to give a dicision on a question on which volumes of evidence have been taken without that evidence being placed at the disposal of hon. Members. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will take notice of my protest, and will give hon. Members an opportunity of reading what has been said. I regret that I shall not be in a position to move the next Amendment on the Order Paper, which is that the duty should be imposed for a period of one year only. I feel that we ought to have an opportunity of ascertaining how this duty works, whether it bears out and justifies the decision of the Committee.
I have been reading the Report with great care and interest. I find that unskilled workers in this industry get 48s. per week, and that the minimum is the amount that is paid; they do not get more. That is not enough for an unskilled worker. I contend that this proposal ought to be in operation for a year only in order to see if it does the industry any good; whether it increases wages, or does any harm to other industries. A skilled worker receives is. 6d. per hour and bonus. I do not know whether they get a bonus in all cases. It is rather a loose statement, it does not say why or how they get the bonus. And that only emphasises the point I have made, that hon. Members should have access to the evidence that was given. The hon. Member below me (Mr. Hall-Caine), who knows as much about the paper trade as anyone has any right to know, has offered to allow me to look at the evidence given to the Committee, but that is not enough. The hon. Member is in possession of the evidence which other hon. Members of the House of Commons cannot get. The hon. Member says that skilled workers
get 1s. an hour bonus, but we do not know what it is for, whether it is for increased production, or for better production. We should have all this evidence. Here is an industry paying 48s. a week, and I submit that the duty ought to be in operation for one year so that we may be convinced that it is really a provision which we ought to have, that it will really increase wages and diminish unemployment.
The industry, we are told, employs about 7,000 people, but that the raw material finds work for about 300,000 people. It means that an industry employing 7,000 people is going to put a tax on subsidiary industries employing 300,000 people. There has been no increase in unemployment from 1924 to 1926 in this industry. Far from being an increase of unemployment, there has been an increase of 4 per cent. in the employed people, and there is no evidence that production has gone down. I understand that from 1922 to 1923 there was an increase of 3,000 tons in production, and comparing 1922 with 1924 there was an increase of 1,000 tons. The whole proposal is full of anomalies. In the Committee stage a piece of this material was handed down. It seemed to be harder even than wood, harder than rubber, you could make a noise on these benches with it. It was supposed to be used in connection with electrical fittings, but it was called wrapping paper, and is going to be taxed as though it was brown paper used in the shops. The whole position is absolutely stupid, and the application is not justified. It is interesting to read on page 19 of the Report:
Whether such exceptional competition comes largely from countries where the conditions are so different from those in this country as to render the competition unfair.
Competition for the purpose of such inquiry is not to be deemed to be unfair unless it arises from one or more of the following causes:
(a) Depreciation of currency operating so as to create an export bounty.
There are no subsidies, aid if we read further down on the same page we find this statement:
It was stated by an opposing witness that the German Government makes some concession on its State-owned railways in favour of consignments sent by rail to German ports of shipment, but that many
mills nevertheless prefer to send by water. The concession is apparently not a matter of significance.
I hope the President of the Board of Trade will accept this Amendment. No single argument can be put forward for a duty on wrapping paper that could not be put forward in respect of any other industry. I end as I began. As long as I am a member of this House I shall raise my voice in protest if hon. Members do not have an opportunity of reading and studying the evidence given in these cases before we are asked to consider and vote on a matter of importance like this. We should know what has been said for and against the proposal in order that we may vote in the right direction.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: The hon. Member who has moved the omission of this Clause made ample and very courteous references to the speech, or speeches, I made in Committee on this Clause, but he added that I appear to be satisfied with the replies which were given. If he will be good enough to look either at the Divisions Lists which were taken in the Committee stage or at the Amendments which stand in my name on the Order Paper to-day, he will hardly feel justified in arriving at the conclusion that my satisfaction was complete. So far from being completely satisfied, I am in a very considerable dilemma in regard to this Clause as a whole. This Clause proposes a duty of 16⅔d. or, roughly, 2d. in the shilling on wrapping paper. I am perfectly free to admit that I think this proposal is a very questionable application of the whole principle of safeguarding. I am one of those who think that in the interests of British industry the safeguarding principle is one which may be occasionally applied equitably; but I also think that the principle of safeguarding is one which ought to be applied with the greatest possible caution and circumspection, and I submit that in its application one dominating consideration should be observed. That dominating consideration, in my view, is this: whether the protective duty—because it is a protective duty—while safeguarding and assisting one industry, does not operate to the detriment of other industries of equal or greater importance.
By this duty you are proposing to confer a measure of protection on an industry
which I am given to understand employs about 7,000 workers. That is not an inconsiderable number, but it is certainly inconsiderable in relation to those other industries which will be affected by the imposition of this duty. Wrapping paper, as was pointed out frequently in the debate on the Committee stage of this Bill, and to some extent as far as I remember on the Second Reading as well—is the raw material in about 20 other important manufacturing industries, which employ in the aggregate, not 7,000 workers, but as I am informed about 400,000 workers. Among those workers there are more in my own constituency alone who will be affected by this duty than there are in the wrapping paper industry. There are 9,000 persons in my own constituency who are directly affected by this proposed duty, and there are many more who will be indirectly affected by its imposition.
I do not need to remind this House or the world that the constituency which I represent is one of the most important, if not the most important, centre in the confectionery and chocolate trades. Those whom I represent will he affected in two ways. On the one hand, they will be affected by the proposal which is now before the House. A bounty is to be given to imported chocolate, because this duty on wrapping paper is not in certain cases to be collected. There is a proviso, I think, in Subsection (2) that that paper shall be exempted from duty which is employed in wrapping chocolate, confectionery and various other things. Now the imports of foreign manufactured cocoa, chocolate confectionery and sugar confectionery into this country have shown a very considerable increase in recent years. In 1924 the imports of foreign chocolate, cocoa and sugar confectionery into this country amounted to £1,900,000. In 1925 they had risen to considerably over £2,000,000—£2,173,000. Now it is contended, with a large measure of justice, by those on whose behalf I am speaking, that the effect of this proposal will be to give a bounty, not inconsiderable in amount, to these imported goods, which are in direct competition with goods produced in this country. I know I shall be told by my hon. Friend opposite, who made such an admirable speech on the Committee stage in support of this Clause, that the bounty is altogether in-
considerable in extent. I have been at some pains to try to ascertain—it is very difficult—precisely to what it amounts. The reply I have received is this. I want to put the House in possession of it, because, to some little extent, it corrects what I said in Committee, and falls in with the correction made, which I want at once to acknowledge, by the hon. Member for East Dorset {Mr. Caine).
Types of wrappings and packings vary so much that it is a difficult matter to ascertain exactly what is the exact ratio to complete cost.
That was my inquiry. I wanted to know, as far as possible, what was the ratio of wrapping paper to the complete cost of the imported commodity. This is the reply which I received:
But from very careful analysis we have made of a number of the most popular selling lines the average ratio is approximately 7½ per cent.
My impression is that the Report put, it at a figure very much below that and that a figure very much below that was quoted by the President of the Board of Trade, because he challenged me in Committee to read a portion of the Report which I did not think supported my case, and I very naturally declined to do so. The average ratio, my correspondent says, is approximately 7½ per cent.
This figure is confirmed by a similar analysis made by one of our friends.
Then he goes on:
This figure includes all paper, both dutiable and non-dutiable and it is not possible to say what proportion is liable-to duty.
I am very sorry, but although I have made every endeavour to obtain the information which my hon. Friend desires, I cannot make a more precise statement than that. It may be said that this is not a very serious matter, but if it is anything approaching 7½ per cent. it is obvious that it is not a negligible one. So much I have desired to say in regard to the bounty, which as I am contending. will be given to imported confectionery, chocolate, and so on, which are in competition with the corresponding industry in this country, whether to a large extent or to a small extent. Be the bounty large or small it will be given to these-imported commodities which are in competition with our own products.
Then there is the other aspect of the matter. We are not only, as consumers
in this country, importers of a large amount of foreign confectionery and chocolate, but I am glad to think and know that our manufacturers of these commodities are also very considerable exporters. I find that in 1925 British exports of manufactured sugar, cocoa and chocolate confectionery amounted to £2,198,000, but whereas the imports of foreign manufactures are slightly on the up grade, as I showed a minute or two ago, the exports of British commodities of the same kind are on the down grade. In 1924 we exported £2,351,000 worth of these commodities, as against £2,198,000 worth last year, therefore it is perfectly obvious to every member of the Committee that we cannot afford to put on the British product any sort of impediment which will make it more difficult for the British product to compete in the neutral markets. I have here, by the courtesy of a correspondent—because I notice a growing disposition towards exhibits in this House—a specimen of paper which is known technically as Bavarian porcelain dipping paper, which I am informed is very largely used in the chocolate trade. As a matter of fact that paper has on it the name of a well-known York firm, and it is used for the purpose—so I am advised—of giving a high gloss to the chocolate and moulding the name of the manufacturer on the bottom of the sweetmeat. I am advised that for the purposes for which it is desired to use this paper it is unrivalled, as far as any British product is concerned. It is used after repeated cleansing for the same purpose, and by no stretch of the imagination can this paper be described as wrapping paper. But at least one port of entry—and I daresay at a good many more, though I have only evidence of one—the Customs have insisted upon duty being paid upon this paper, which is emphatically a portion of the raw material of the commodity which is now under our consideration.
I spoke at some length upon this point on the Committee stage and I do not wish to repeat the argument I then used, but I will conclude with this one observation. I have tried to show that under this proposed Clause those whose interests I am attempting to represent in this House will be damnified in two directions. On the one hand, their foreign competitors in this country will receive. (under the pro-
viso of Sub-Clause 2) what is tantamount to a bounty on imported chocolate, etc. On the other hand, they will be damnified in that they will have to pay some additional price, if the duty raises the price for the paper which is an essential part of their cost of production, and, finally, they will be damnified as exporters from this country because their cost of production will be to this extent increased. There is one dominating consideration which I have suggested must be observed if this safeguarding principle is really to become a permanent part of our fiscal policy. I want to make it clear, in conclusion, that to the general principle of safeguarding I am not opposed, but I venture most respectfully yet most emphatically to urge that, whereas we have agreed to the principle as a general principle, yet that principle must be applied with the greatest possible circumspection in particular cases. That is why I, for one, am not at all in love with this particular Clause in the Finance Bill. I will certainly vote for the inclusion of the Clause if the Government will give me any satisfaction in regard to the Amendment which stands in my name and in the name of the hon. Member for Moss Side (Mr. Hurst) and other Members. If they will not hold out any satisfaction, then, in the Parliamentary phrase, I shall have to consider my position. What I want to say, as one who has accepted the principle of safeguarding, is that I am personally quite convinced that the only result of applying Protection in such a case as that which I am now bringing to the attention of the House will be to make the whole principle of safeguarding stink in the nostrils of the industrial community of this country.

Mr. DENNISON: In the Committee stage we listened to several very important speeches on this subject, and none were delivered with more force and more logic than that of the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) opposing the imposition of the duty on wrapping paper, and that of the hon. Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson) supporting it. The former is a die-hard Protectionist and the other is a die-hard Tory, and that is the same thing. I expect, when the Division is taken, the hon. Member for York will follow the Labour party into the Lobby in opposition to this duty. I am not necessarily one of those ardent Free Traders from whom we hear so many
speeches on this subject, but I do submit that, in all cases where we are considering the imposition of a duty on imported goods, we should have serious regard to the effect of that duty on the users of the imported article. I am satisfied, after carefully considering the Report of the Board of Trade Committee, that, while the wrapping paper interests were well to the front, the users of wrapping paper did not get that consideration for the evidence they submitted that they ought to have received. If I understand the case for the duty, it has been submitted that, if this duty be imposed, it will reduce unemployment in the wrapping paper industry. I believe there are something like 7,000 people normally employed in this industry, of whom about 1,000 are unemployed at the moment. It has been said that the average wage paid in the wrapping paper industry does not exceed £2 a week. If we solved the whole of the unemployment problem in that industry, it would amount to no more than £100,000 per annum. What is it to cost the confectionery trade, particularly the chocolate trade?
Like the hon. Member for York, I represent a constituency where a great many people are employed in the chocolate industry. There are about 10,000 people employed in the well-known firm of Cadbury Brothers, of Bournville, 3,000 more people than are employed in the paper trade. Were their interests taken into consideration by the Committee? I say they were not considered to the extent that they ought to have been. It has been said by the Member for East Dorset (Mr. Caine) that there was a good deal of humbug about the complaint of the confectionery trade, and particularly the chocolate branch of it, as to the bad effects of this duty. He said it would amount to one penny per week per person employed in the chocolate industry. We will assume that that obviously low estimate is correct. There are 10,000 people employed by Cadbury Brothers alone. A penny a week, whether it is paid by the workpeople, the consumer, or the manufacturer, would cost, in the case of that firm alone, £1,750 per annum. What for? To solve the unemployment problem in the wrapping paper trade, which would cost only £100,000 per annum. If that is safeguarding, we do not want anything to do with it. We think it is wrong economics, and that those who have
examined this matter have been wrong either in their arithmetic or their fiscal policy.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Did the hon. Member say £175,000?

Mr. DENNISON: I find I was wrong about the number of people employed. There are 84,000 people employed in the confectionery industry. That does not destroy the strength of my argument; it is merely a question of putting the figures correct. There is, however, one very important phase which has been touched upon by the hon. Member for York and that is the unfairness of the method of applying this duty. Cadbury Brothers—and I dare say the same is true of the York firm and of all large users of wrapping paper—purchase their paper in bulk, and they are liable to pay a duty of 16⅔ per cent. The effect of that tax will be to pass on an additional cost to the consumer of confectionery of 7½ per cent. The worst feature is in respect to competition abroad. The chocolate manufacturers in Europe and in America wrap their goods up to send them into this country, and unless that paper is in excess of 15 per cent. of the value of the total cost of the material, the goods and the paper come in free, but the chocolate manufacturers in this country have to pay full duty on the paper when it comes to them. Then, with that duty against them, they have to compete with the foreigner, who gets his goods in here free, wrapped in paper. I am one of those who believe that sufficient examination has not been made of the safeguarding question, not only in regard to what happens at home, but in regard to what is done abroad, and I say that it should be examined with an open mind. I have not heard a case made out in this House which would justify us imposing a duty on wrapping paper or showing that it would be fair and equitable and that it will not do more harm than good. I trust that, before we go to a Division, the Minister in charge will make a serious effort to meet the criticism of this duty which has been made, not only from this side of the House, but by Members on his own side.

5.0 P.M.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): In replying to this Debate, I will try to convince the right hon. Gentleman who has
moved this Amendment, although I do not suppose I shall be successful. We have heard the same arguments to-day as those which were raised and fully canvassed in the Committee stage. Then every argument that could he advanced was put forward. In substance, the argument put forward by the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Clause was this. He said that, neither by reason of the conditions which obtain in the industry, nor by reason of the volume of production, nor by reason of the imports, nor the character of the competition which these imports indicated, are we justified in imposing a. duty. He added that there are other industries which will be adversely affected. The hon. Member will be familiar with the saying of Stevenson, that it might be rather difficult to define precisely where night and day merge or are divided. So we find it rather difficult in defining an industry of substantial importance, but one knows what one is when one sees it, and I submit that this industry, employing all these people and able to employ a great many more, is an industry of substantial importance. It is said that the home production is not sufficient to justify this duty. It is never easy to get, apart from the census of production, completely accurate figures, but there is no doubt that production ha gone down enormously. I have not heard it substantially challenged that production has fallen from 260,000 tons or thereabout before the War to 180,000 tons in 1924. No one will deny that that is a substantial fall in production. While that great fall has taken place in production, imports have increased from 201,000 tons before the War to a rate of importation in the present year—it is naturally leas now that the duty operates from the date that the Resolution is passed and the immediate effect of a flood of imports following the announcement of the duty is not now felt. The dam has been erected and imports since this Resolution was passed show a marked decline. But up to that time the rate of imports was 260,000 tons. There is a fall of production on the one hand and an increase of importation on the other hand. The bulk of that importation is coming from countries where competition is unfair—
from Sweden where wages are lower and hours longer—and in every country the House will find that there is a longer continuous working day. In recent years there has been a marked increase in the imports from Germany, where the rate had gone up to 7,000 tons a month. Beyond question, more than two-thirds of the imports are coming from countries where the conditions are unfair as compared with this country. The suggestion was made that unemployment has not increased. The hon. Member who made that suggestion cannot be in touch with the trade unions who have the conduct of this industry. Those who have the conduct of the trade unions concerned here have stated repeatedly that in this section of the industry unemployment is 15 per cent. or more amongst their members, not counting something like 50 per cent. who are on short time. The case is established, I say, on all the grounds on which he said we failed to establish a case. Then the hon. Member said that if you established that case you ought not to impose this duty because you might do damage to existing industries. The hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) has been a most stout defender of the particular industry workers in which number a large part of his constituency. I am sure that if there was any question of protecting that industry he would be as stout a supporter of a duty.
The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) took as an example straw paper, and referred to a communication which has been sent round which challenges substantially the case I made on straw paper last time. I have nothing to withdraw from what I said then, although I might point out that I was misreported in the latter part of my speech. I think it was obvious that where I mentioned straw paper the reporter had misreported it "straw." What was the contention I advanced then? It was this—that you have in this country the machinery and the firms who have made and were making straw paper, and that this straw paper was a perfectly adequate wrapping or packing paper as the raw material for corrugated paper. I contended that we manufuctured that on a considerable scale. This has not really been challenged, and I say further that this straw paper, manufactured in this country, is being sold by these firms who make it to corrugaters and is being
used by the firms themselves in the further process of manufacturing corrugated paper. There is a division of opinion, and some people who corrugate like to import foreign papers and use them. Others like to use English paper. If I had to choose between the firm who makes an English article and uses it in its further process, or the firm who, in the further process, uses the foreign article, why should I make an illogical and unjustified distinction in the interest of a firm not manufacturing from the English article?

Mr. HURST: Can the right hon. Gentle man name one English firm which makes straw paper out of straw?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, I do not say that it does make it out of straw, but I do say that it makes it out of chips of straw board and that that manufacture in this country is quite adequate for its purpose, and that it is perfectly adequate for corrugated paper. The lion. Member for York produced the confectionery argument again. We have heard it before. This Committee thought about 1 per cent. of the value of confectionery was wrapping paper, whereas he said it is more than that, and that 7 per cent. paper is used. He said quite frankly, "I cannot tell you how much of that is wrapping paper." I received a deputation on this matter representing various confectioners, and a very large part of the paper used in the trade is not wrapping paper at all.

Sir J. MARRIOTT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if his information is more accurate than mine, and can he give us a figure?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, I cannot. It may be that it is more than I per cent., but I am sure it is a great deal less than 7 per cent. I will give the hon. Member another figure which he will not challenge—that out of the small percentage of paper which is of a dutiable character used in the confectionery trade something like 80 per cent. is paper manufactured in this country. I think that was admitted when I discussed it with the deputation. Even out of the fraction which is wrapping paper, they find it convenient and obviously economical to use 80 per cent. of the English paper. In view of that, I do submit that the Committee were fully justified in their conclusion. Even if
the fears were realised, which may be considerably discounted in view of the experience of those industries included under Clause 10, the Committee found that the damage that would be done to employment in the absence of a duty by the increase in numbers thrown out would be far greater than any damage done to these new industries. Of course, in these industries the article which is made entirely or almost entirely of paper is also protected by the duty. Another argument was that if you are to have the duty it should not be put on for five years but for one year. That is a bad proposal. If it would be upsetting to put a duty on, you have that upset if it is for one year. On the other side you want to encourage people—as I gave instances in the Committee stage to show the duty will do if it is put on—to establish fresh plant by giving them security. If this security which you are going to give them is a security of one year instead of five years, how do you suppose for a moment that you will get any advantage? You will get all the disadvantages that can be argued and none of the advantages that you will get by security. For these reasons I ask the Committee to pass the Clause.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not want to detain the House for more than a very few moments because I think this matter has been very exhaustively discussed, both in Committee and the further Debate, but there are just one or two observations I should like to make. The President of the Board of Trade has quite naturally repeated much of the argument which he advanced on various proposals during the Committee stage. He stated in his concluding observations that he had dealt with all the points which had been raised this afternoon. But there was one very important point which occupied the greater part of the speech of the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Mac-kinder) to which he has made no reply whatever. May I recall to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member for Shipley complained very strongly about the inadequacy of the information which had been supplied to this House. We have practically nothing upon which we can base a judgment except this comparatively meagre and certainly not very impartial Report of the Committee. My hon. Friend de-
mantled, and I think he is justified in that demand, that the House of Commons should have the evidence given before these Safeguarding Committees. We do not ask—and I am quite sure this will appeal to right hon. Gentlemen—in these days of the need for national economy that the Government should be put to the expense of printing the evidence and publishing a large number of volumes. There must be typewritten copies of all the evidence given before these Committees in the possession of somebody, and we have a right to demand that there should be placed in the Library of the House of Commons, copies of this evidence so that Members who are keenly interested in the question may have an opportunity of reading that evidence and of having the material on which to come to an intelligent conclusion on the matter.
We have had this afternoon a striking illustration of the truth of the oftrepeated statement, that every man is a Protectionist for his own trade and a Free Trader for every other trade. We have had the spectacle of a die-hard Protectionist opposing these duties because it is believed they are going to affect the interests of—I was going to say, a Liberal — a commercial firm in his own constituency. May I say, speaking from a rather long electoral experience, that if any Member of Parliament raises a question here, in the hope that he is going to get support thereby, from political opponents in his constituency, he is generally disappointed. But this is very interesting, because it, shows that when you propose or make a practical experiment you divide Protectionists. My hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Dennison), with whose arithmetic I fear I could hardly agree in its revised form, began by saying that he was no hide-bound Free Trader. I am a Free Trader, but I am not hide-bound to the extent that I would refuse to give dispassionate consideration to any particular proposal which was made, though it is very likely that it would take a very strong case indeed to remove what I suppose some hon. Members would call the prejudices—I shall call them the principles—which I hold very strongly. But, as I said just now, when you make or propose a practical experiment, general principles recede into the back-
ground, and individuals consider the question as it is likely to affect their own trade or personal interest.
The hon. Member for East Dorset (Mr. Caine), who made a remarkably interesting and well-informed speech during the Committee stage of this Bill, advanced this argument, that even if this duty did increase any prices it would be an infinitesimal increase. But that point of the smallness of the effect of these duties has been used on every proposal that has been made for the safeguarding duty. What we must remember is, that it may not be very large where the particular duty is concerned, but the cumulative effect may be very high. In the last few years we had duties on motor cars. No doubt, every Member of the House has seen the prospectus of a motor company which occupied pages of the newspapers a few days ago,. and I hope Protectionists have examined those figures carefully. I am not digressing, I hope, in touching on this matter because I shall link it to the general argument in a moment and it has a general application. It will be remembered that when I proposed to repeal the McKenna Duties, the most highly organised opposition came from the Morris motor car people, and, as a matter of fact, they sent out cards to the workpeople saying that if the duties were removed their contracts of service would expire. The duties were afterwards re-imposed and the figures of the prospectus show that they had the largest increases of output during the 12 months when the duties were off. The profits were largest that year and there was the largest volume of employment that year.
The President of the Board of Trade has referred to unemployment in the paper trade and has said that as a result of imports, the amount of employment in the whole trade had declined and he seemed to think that that was a conclusive answer to the arguments advanced in opposition to the proposal. We always get that from the. Tariff Reformer. The Tariff Reformer is a one-eyed individual and he can only see what is right in front of that eye. The, Tariff Reformer is quite incapable of taking an all-round view of industry. No Free Trader has ever denied that you may give an artificial advantage to a particular industry by protecting it, but the Free Trade
argument as opposed to the Protectionist argument, is you must not take into account only the effect of that particular isolated duty, but that you must look at the effect upon industry as a whole. Therefore, it is no conclusive argument to point out that there has been an increase in unemployment which might have been due to any one of a hundred causes; you have to take into consideration the general effect upon all industries and, particularly, upon those which are dependent on these articles as the staple commodity or material of their industry. The right hon. Gentleman said that the imports came largely from countries where the conditions were unfair. He used the word "unfair" and he especially cited the case of Sweden. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman must have either forgotten the Report of his Committee, or he was assuming that, other Members of the House had forgotten it. May I refer him to page 21 of the Committee's Report, paragraph 59, which says:
in the case of Sweden the available statistics suggest that real (hourly) wages in the paper industry are from 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. below those of the United Kingdom "—
The right hon. Gentleman's case would be established if I stopped there, but even this Committee did not stop there. The Report proceeds:
but the factors of uncertainty mentioned above are specially operative in this case where the wage is based on an elaborate classification, both by categories of workers and by geographical groups. Piece-work, again, on rates calculated to yield 20 per cent. more than the hourly rates, is obligatory under the wage agreement whenever such an arrangement is possible. Moreover, it would appear that British and Swedish real wages have increased to a practically identical extent since the War, so that whatever disparity exists is apparently a continuation only of a disparity already present before the War,
and then the Committee answer the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the competition of Sweden is unfair—
We should hesitate to describe Swedish wage conditions, so far as we can ascertain them, as 'unfair'.
Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's reference to Sweden is answered out of the Report of the Committee itself. I will not say more, except this. The House of Commons is discussing a duty on wrapping paper. It is supported by the right hon. Gentleman, who is admittedly an all-round Protectionist. I
am old enough to remember Mr. Joseph Chamberlain's great campaign—"crusade" might more accurately describe it—for Imperial Preference and a duty on manufactured articles. There was something idealistic in Mr. Joseph Chamberlain's campaign. He understood the question. If Mr. Joseph Chamberlain could come back to this House and listen to this Debate, I wonder what he would think when he found the House of Commons engaged, not in applying the principles which he advocated, to some Imperialist proposal, not in putting a tax upon manufactured articles at all, but on this proposal? The Protectionism of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain has come don n to a duty on wrapping paper.

Sir ROBERT BIRD: It may well be asked, after listening to some of the examples given by the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) of the application of this duty, and after the observations of the President of the Board of Trade, whether we are not really engaged to-day in discussing a general duty on paper, rather than a duty on wrapping paper. I wish to bring forward one more example of the obvious attempt which is being made to embrace, within this safeguarding proposal, categories of paper other than wrapping paper. We heard the President of the Board of Trade's reference to the Committee's observations upon straw paper. I can find in the Report of the Committee no reference to straw paper, nor do I believe that any reference was made to that paper in the evidence before the Committee. If straw paper is to be considered as wrapping paper, I can only say that it is as unsuitable material as you could possibly imagine for wrapping purposes. It is lacking in fibre, it is not supple, it breaks and it has very little resisting or protecting power.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): There is an Amendment in the hon. Baronet's name which raises this as a separate issue.

Sir R. BIRD: I understood we were allowed to speak on the general question, and I was addressing my observations in that way.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I hope the observations will not be repeated on the other Amendment.

Sir R. BIRD: It was my intention to move the Amendment formally. The sole justification for including straw paper in this duty was because the President of the Board of Trade stated that it was assumed throughout to be included under the term "wrapping paper." Further, he added that it was perfectly open for anyone to give evidence. If that assumption be correct, it remained a well-kept secret, because neither was any evidence given before the Committee, nor any Amendments made by way of assumption that straw paper would be included, nor was the slightest reference made in the Committee's Report to straw paper. In fact, far from the Committee's Report bearing out the President's assumption, the evidence is to the contrary.
The Committee proceeded according to the rules which were laid down in the White Paper, quite properly, and in the first place it set out six principal descriptions of wrapping paper. These categories differ very widely one from the other, both in their characteristics and their qualities and manufacture, ranging in out-turn from 37 per cent. down to as low as 2 per cent. Two per cent. represents about £4,000 annually. Previously we had the statement of the President of the Board of Trade in Committee that straw paper was produced in this country to no less an extent than 15,000 tons annually. I submit that if the assumption be correct that straw paper should be included in the category of wrapping paper, the Committee would at least have included it under the six heads which are set out in the Report, particularly as the quantity produced in 1923 is in itself nearly four times that, of one of the principal descriptions of wrapping paper. The Report goes on to give some of the characteristics of these wrapping papers The Committee speaks of kraft, which is only 4 per cent. as against 8 per cent. of that which is termed straw paper, and mention again is made of other kinds and their uses. But in all this there is not the slightest reference to straw paper which, if it had been included, would have certainly ranked amongst the headings to which I have referred.
Finally, in Clause 21, page 9 of the Report, there is given a new and improved classification of wrapping paper
imports in force on 1st January, 1925, long before the appointment of the Committee. Again, no mention is made of straw paper. Really, this question of what is defined as wrapping paper and what is not is an extremely technical one and it is not fair that it should be debated upon the Floor of the House of Commons. It is for that very reason that the Committee did its work and issued its report. When the White Paper was debated in February, 1925, we were informed that the House was to have the right to make a pronouncement upon specific cases which had been reported upon by the Committee. I have taken the trouble to refer to the speech of the President of the Board of Trade on that occasion and he, in his endeavour to reassure the House as to the safeguards which the rules under the Inquiry would provide, stated something of this kind:
After a case has been reported on by a Committee, the House is then to be asked to decide upon specific proposals. Surely that is what any reasonable man wants?
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
Let the Committee report on the particular facts of the particular case, and then I can see whether the industry is of substantial importance. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1925; col. 813, Vol. 180]
The case of straw paper has not been reported upon at all. It has not even been submitted. The only thing that has been done is to include it under wrapping paper. Nearly every expert consulted by the President had assured him that straw paper was wrapping paper, but I, in common with many hon. Members have received evidence of experts who are opposed to the President of the Board of Trade. He is taking up an attitude which is not right and proper. Altogether the issue is so confused, and confusion is being made worse confounded by the statements of the President, that I think we are justified in asking him to make a generous gesture, to take out of his proposals straw paper, and to bring it before a Committee so that an application can be considered in a proper and regular manner. The House can then have the advice and the advantage of the guidance of the Committee, which has had the opportunity of hearing the evidence of experts duly weighed and valued, before recommendations are made.

Mr. HARRIS: A disinterested observer listening to these Debates would not think that we were discussing the Finance Bill, the Bill for raising the necessary revenue for the year. What such a one would gather from the Debate would be that we were discussing ways to encourage various industries and trades and to foster vested interests. As a matter of fact, it is part of the Finance Bill that is now going through the House, and it is our annual Debate on finance, and the finding of ways of raising the revenue for the payment of charges. We are putting the case for and against a particular duty so far as a particular district is affected.
We have heard a very interesting statement from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Sir R. Bird) and it would appear that in his case it is the last straw that has broken the camel's back. Apparently some hon. Members are prepared to vote for a protectionist scheme where their own particular interest or particular constituency is not affected. They are prepared to vote for duties on cutlery, drugs, hosiery, and all sorts of articles. Hon. Members who have now left the House, including the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) have spoken quite frankly. He told us that he was quite in favour of the principle of safeguarding—safeguarding anything and everything so long as we do not safeguard the very thing that may affect the industry of his great city. That is inevitable from this new policy of safeguarding industries. That is why we on these benches oppose it. We quite realise—it does not require much imagination to do that—the case for protecting any particular industry isolated from all the others. Once, however, you start on this downward course, and try to select various industries for protection you must undermine the whole industry of the country. While you may help one trade, on the balance the country suffers. The hon. Member for York made out an unanswerable case. The President of the Board of Trade did not really seriously attempt to refute his arguments. His only defence was that this was only a little one. Surely it is one that affects the cost of production? The more matters go in this direction the more satisfactorily the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman presides will be satisfied. He should cease to call
himself the President of the Board of Trade. He should be termed His Majesty's Minister of Customs.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): This is rather wide of the question of wrapping paper.

Mr. HARRIS: I quite appreciate, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I was wandering a little afield, but this proposal covers so many things in general use that it would be very difficult to deal with wrapping paper except by covering a very much wider area. There is no one that can make a case in Debate for putting on this tax. What this proposal points to is how unwise it is to impose a tax of this kind. It is our pride, it is our satisfaction that we are great exporters, that our existence depends upon it. Everything that goes out or comes in to this country has wrapping paper on or around it in some form or other. It has been pointed out by hon. Members how this is going to add to the cost of production. The hon. Member for York pointed out how it was going to add to the cost of the production of chocolates. At first sight paper does not seem to have much relation to chocolates, but they have to be wrapped in boxes in a particular form to make the box and contents attractive, so that if you are going to put a tax on wrapping paper you are going to increase the cost of the production of chocolates and make it more difficult for this great industry to compete with industries in other parts of the world. Consider the effect of this upon chocolate, upon the trade, and even more upon those unorganised trades, or not organised enough, to impress the Committee that has been considering the point.
A case has to be made before the Committee, but the case has to be a special and exceptional one before it can claim to be heard. Ordinary trades which find themselves dependent for their existence on their foreign trade cannot make a case for special treatment. None the less they are going to be handicapped. Then there are large trades that have some rather remote association with the textile trade, and with wrapping paper. Anybody who knows anything about the Bradford dress goods trade knows that every piece of dress stuff exported has to be wrapped in paper, all of which, I venture to suggest, has to be imported from
abroad. Bradford claims to be helped in this matter of safeguarding. They have endeavoured to show that they were suffering from severe competition from abroad, but they failed to make out their case and protection or safeguarding was refused them—I think rightly. Having failed to make their case, one of the articles essential to their trade is now to be taxed, and every piece of Bradford dress goods exported abroad in competition with other countries is to have its bit of paper taxed. I am not surprised that Lancashire Members, too, are up in arms and protesting, because the exporters of cotton piece goods have to use wrapping paper.
As people get more civilised, the get-up of an article is essential for its sale, and the smart appearance of many articles depends on the proper use of paper. Moreover, all the goods which go abroad have to be put into cases, and paper is used with those cases. It is not now essential to use zinc, because with improved methods of packing, and better ships, paper is substituted for zinc. That paper is to be taxed. All the great packing houses in Manchester and London, houses famous throughout the world, find now that the President of the Board of Trade—the Minister of Customs as I say—is going to put a tax on their raw material. That is not the way to carry out the duties of President of the Board of Trade. Let him leave finance to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows better; he is out for taxes that bring in revenue and not for Protective taxes, and the President is not going to help him to obtain revenue by making our export trade more difficult through an increase in the cost of production. If we injure the export trade, we injure the Income Tax Revenue, which is still the main source of income to the Treasury. This duty it a bad one; even from the point of view of the Protectionists it is a bad one, because it taxes raw material. Even Mr. Joseph Chant berlain never suggested that raw mate rials should be taxed. Anything which came within the definition of raw material was to be exempted, even though certain foods were to be taxed; but now, at a time of great trade depression, the
President of the Board of Trade is proposing to tax an article which is essentially a raw material, thus crippling industry, decreasing employment and making it more difficult for our manufacturers to compete in the markets of the world.

Mr. HALL CAINE: After the very long speech on this Bill which I made on another occasion, I rather hesitate to detain the House for more than a few minutes, but as I have been somewhat criticised, both outside and, to some extent, inside the House, for statements I have made on the question of wrapping paper, I trust the House will allow me to defend those statements and to justify them if I can. I would like to make two comments arising out of the present Debate. I hope the arguments of the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Dennison) are better than his arithmetic, because I make the figare £72,500 and not £175,000. It only shows what exaggerated statements are made about Wrapping-paper Duty. People talk about 400,000 people being affected. Of course, 400,000 people are affected, 40,000,000 are in some way affected; but what we have to deal with is the fact that there are 7,000 people whose absolute livelihood is affected by this duty, and it is for those 7,000, and for 3,000 or 4,000 others who could be put into employment that I have appealed to this House.
I have already explained that being myself interested in the trade I take no part in the divisions, but I trust the House will allow me to explain this matter in some detail. It has been said that the experts disagree. I have never claimed to be an expert, but I understand that six gentlemen who, I think, may fairly claim to be experts, have circularised every Member of the House on a particular phase of this duty which has been referred to by the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Sir R. Bird). I thank him for the very moderate way in which he put the case. As I said, I am not an expert, chiefly for the reason that in my trade experts are known as gentlemen who have never successfully manufactured any paper themselves but are very useful in giving advice to others as to how it should be done, and I happen to be a paper manufacturer. It is because I am anxious that neither the Board of Trade nor the House should be asked to grant
safeguarding to the straw paper industry unless absolutely satisfied about it that I propose to deal with this particular question alone.
What is the gravamen of the complaint about straw paper? The corrugated paper trade have four complaints. First they say that the wrapping paper makers did not ask for the safeguarding of straw paper, that they could not do so because straw paper is not a wrapping paper. The second is that the corrugated paper makers were given no opportunity of placing their case against the duty before the Committee, and that they were not represented. The third point is that no straw paper is made in this country, but only what they call a bad imitation. The fourth is that British straw paper is really so bad in quality as to be practically useless, and that really nobody wants it.
With regard to the statement that the wrapping paper makers did not ask for the safeguarding of straw paper, their case was covered by Clause 14 of the Report. On page 6 will be found the statement:
a duty of 331 per cent. ad valorem be imposed on all paper of above 10 lbs. substance classified by the Customs Department as Packing and Wrapping papers or Tissue, with the exception of 'glazed transparent'.
I think that is the claim of the wrap ping paper makers. If I can show that this straw paper has been and is always classified by the Customs as wrapping paper, I think that ought to knock on the head once for all the fact that straw paper was not included in the application. I have here a letter from the Board of Customs in reply to an inquiry as to the category in which straw paper comes. They say:
With reference to your letter I have to inform you that straw paper is recorded for purposes of the official trade statistics under the heading 'Paper, packing or wrapping, (1) glazed, (2) unglazed'.
That is signed by the Deputy-Controller of Customs. I think it effectually dispoes of that point. Then they say the corrugated paper makers were not given an opportunity of placing their case against the duty before the Committee and that they were not represented. I am reliably informed that, so far from having no knowledge of this matter, they had a very complete knowledge. The Association of Corrugated Paper Makers
held a meeting during the early proceedings of the Safeguarding Committee, and decided to take no action in the matter; certainly they decided not to oppose the application. They decided one point further, that as the Federation of British Paper Box Makers were also corrugated paper makers they would leave their case, for what it was worth, in their hands. They did so.
We find, if we refer to the Committee's Report, that Mr. Culross, who is a prominent box-maker, and also a solicitor, appeared before the Committee right the way through the proceedings. He heard everything and had only got to ask if he was uncertain about anything. Mr. Culross, in common with every well-informed box-maker, knew perfectly well that straw paper is referred to as wrapping paper. It was not for the applicants to go out into the highways and byways and search for people to come forward to oppose the application. It cannot be contended that an applicant for a safeguarding duty has not only to prove his case, but also to bring forward people to oppose it; and when a representative of the British paper box-makers was present to watch the proceedings on their behalf, it proves beyond all question that the corrugated paper makers knew perfectly well that their interests would be affected if this duty were imposed.
I have here a minute of a meeting of the Corrugated Paper Makers which, I think, will interest and may amuse the House:
After a thorough discussion of the subject it was agreed that as corrugated straw paper came within that section of the trade covered by the British Paper Box Makers' Federation, the Association would leave the matter of the application of the duty to straw paper for their consideration, but would press for a duty on imported corrugated rolls, corrugated boxes, and corrugated hoard.
They found they were going to put a duty on imported corrugated rolls, corrugated boxes and corrugated boards, and so they thought, "Well, it does not matter much to us if they do put a duty on corrugated paper."
6.0 P.M.
Finally, there is the point as to whether corrugated paper is made in this country or whether it is only an imitation. If such paper is not made in this country and is only what these
gentlemen are pleased to call an imitation, then there is no paper made in this country—no wood paper in this country at all. All printing papers made in this country, with the exception of esparto or rag paper, are made of wood pulp, which is brought over from Scandinavia or Canada or some other country. These gentlemen suggest that because we do not make our paper here wholly of straw, or even partly of straw, in the raw state, that, therefore, our paper is an imitation. That is the suggestion made. It is wood pulp treated by a sulphurous process and passed over the machine so as to make paper. Straw proper, in one case, is undoubtedly made by chipping straw and boiling it with lime, and passing it over the machine. The result is you get a strawboard like this, which is similar to a pulp board like that from which white paper is made. It is absolute nonsense for those gentlemen to contend that the paper which is made out of this white sheet and which is used for the "Times," the "Morning Post," the "Daily Telegraph," and the "Daily Herald" is imitation, and that straw paper made out of that is imitation. Both are made under exactly the same kind of process. So far as we are concerned, British papermakers contend that the straw paper made here is not only not inferior but is better, in many respects, than the foreign article. The President of the Board of Trade told us that some 15,000 tons of strawpaper were made in one year in this country, admittedly at a higher cost than the paper which comes in from Holland. Admittedly, British strawpaper costs the corrugated paper manufacturer £1 per ton more, but if British paper makers were producing their full output the difference would not be so great,. and I hope the House will find that that is the result within a very short time.
A number of British makers of corrugated paper are quite anxious to pay £1 a ton more for the British article, and they are in competition with those five or six firms who are now contending that a special exception should be made in relation to strawpaper imported from Holland. There are only one or two points in their case. One is that the
British-made article which we contend is better than the foreign article is a little dearer, and the other point is that when you make your strawpaper from the chippings of the strawboard the colour of that strawpaper is a little dark. I admit it is a little darker than the foreign make, but after all hon. Members will realise that a straw corrugated paper is not used for decorating purposes, and it does not matter very much if the tone is a little brighter or darker in one make than in the other. It is rather a matter of taste. Personally, I would prefer the dark shade, but there may be hon. Members who prefer the light shade. It is rather like one's taste in ladies, some prefer blondes and others brunettes. The mills in this country are successfully producing strawpaper, the only difference being a slightly higher price and a little darker colour. In what I have said I have not tried to over-estimate the case, but I have endeavoured to put the facts fairly. I trust that hon. Members will be satisfied that a case has been made out by the Minister, and I hope they will support him in opposing this Amendment.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I had not intended taking any part in the discussion on this question until the straw-paper Amendment was reached, but when we come to that Amendment we shall probably take a silent vote, and therefore I rise now to put the case for the other side. The users of strawpaper, whom the hon. Member for East Dorset (Mr. Caine) appears to scoff at because they are not manufacturers, certainly are the people who use the material, and they are as much entitled to be heard as the manufacturers, and for that reason they may be experts, although they are not manufacturers. Their case is that they did not understand that this article was to be included in the question of wrapping paper. What is the reason why they take that view I suggest it is one which must commend itself to the serious attention of this House.
They had very definite reasons for thinking that it was excluded. In the first place they definitely rang up the Board of Trade and inquired whether this was included or not, and they were informed that it was not. One would think that that alone was sufficient ground for these people to conclude that it was excluded. The hon. Member for East
Dorset says that he has evidence that it is included in the Customs among wrapping papers, and ho says that he has made inquiries and finds that strawpaper is included in wrapping paper. I suggest that that is not really the criterion. The question is not whether it is included to-day but whether it was included in the term "wrapping paper" at the time the inquiry was being held. The information which reaches me is that perfectly definitely it was not so included at the time immediately preceding and I believe at the time the inquiry was being held. Proof is contained in this fact that a large part of straw paper comes from Holland, and in the last three months of the year 1925 something like 3,500 tons of Dutch strawpaper were imported. When we turn to the Customs we find in those three months only 610 tons of paper classified as wrapping paper unglazed, whereas 42,000 tons of strawboard were contained in the Customs return. I would ask the hon. Member for East Dorset how it is possible in 610 tons to include 3,500 tons of strawpaper. It is clear that in those months these 3,500 tons of strawpaper were not included in paper, but in strawboards. If these are the correct facts for the period immediately preceding the inquiry, and the strawpaper was not included in the Customs account of wrapping paper, and in view of the fact that on inquiry at the Board of Trade these people were told specifically that this was not to be included in the term "wrapping paper," then I say that the case of the users of strawpaper that they ought not to be included in this duty is quite unanswerable. I suggest that unless those facts can be seriously controverted then to include this article in that term is not only very unfair to the users of strawpaper, but it is an abuse of the whole method of discussion by a Committee upon which this duty professes to be based.
That is the main case, but it is not the only case. The case of the users of this strawpaper is that this particular article is not manufactured in this country. It is quite true that 'corrugated paper is manufactured in this country, and that is what was stated by the President of the Board of Trade. The question is whether the corrugated paper made here is
strawpaper or whether it is not. The hon. Member for East Dorset says it is, but those who heard his speech will regard it as inconclusive. Surely the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Of course it is open to the hon. Member for Dorset to tell us, who are not experts, that the paper he makes is as good as somebody else makes abroad, but that does not answer the position at all. The question is whether the people who use this strawpaper are content with the paper that the hon. Member for East Dorset makes, or whether they want the paper they have always had hitherto and which they find their customers like.
If they say that, however good the paper may be that the hon. Member for East Dorset makes, they do not like it, and their customers will not have it, we have got to take that answer. They say that they can only use what they consider the real strawpaper. If you pay a duty on the foreign paper they will still continue to buy it at a higher price, and no suggestion that corrugated paper made in this country may be just as good really does meet their attitude in the matter. What we are confronted with is an attempt by the Board of Trade to insert, subsequent to the decision of the Committee, a different article which was not intended at the time to be included. They have included a different article, namely, strawpaper, and thereby they have imposed very great hardships upon many of the users of strawpaper. It is a great hardship if they have to pay the whole of this extra duty, and it is going to be an added hardship if they are put at a disadvantage in consequence compared with foreign users of this material. I hope the President of the Board of Trade, even at the last moment, will consent, if not to the withdrawal of the whole of the duty, at least seriously to consider whether the inclusion of straw-paper has not been a mistake, and when the Amendment dealing with this question is formally moved, I hope he will consent to accept it.

Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the House will now be prepared to dispose of this Amendment, in order that we may have time to consider the other Amendments on the Paper.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the end of line 14, page 9, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 237; Noes, 125.

Division No. 372.]
AYES.
6.15 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Murchison, C. K.


Albery, Irving James
Fraser, Captain Ian
Neville, R. J.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Frece, Sir Walter de
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G. (Ptesf'ld.)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Nuttall, Ellis


Apsley, Lord
Ganzonl, Sir John
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Gates, Percy
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Atholl, Duchees of
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Pennefather, Sir John


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Balniel, Lord
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Barclay Harvey, C. M.
Goff, Sir Park
Perring, Sir William George


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Gower, Sir Robert
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Palo, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Pitcher, G.


Betterton, Henry B.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pownall, Lieut. Colonel Sir Assheton


Bird Sir R B. (Wolverhampton. W
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Preston, William


Blundell, F. N.
Hanbury, C.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Raine, W.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Harland, A.
Ramsden, E.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Harrison, G. J. C.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Briscoe, Richard George
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Haslam, Henry C.
Rentoul, G. S.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hawke, John Anthony
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newby)
Henderson, Capt. R. R (Oxt'd, Henley)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Rockingham, Sir H.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Ropner, Major L.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Bullock. Captain M.
Hilton, Cecil
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D,(St. Marylebone)
Salmon, Major I.


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Samuel, A M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R.(Prtsmth.S.)
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Sandon, Lord


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland ,Whiteh'n)
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Skelton, A. N.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Huntingfield, Lord
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hurd. Percy A.
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kine'dlne, C.)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Christie, J. A.
Hutchison,G.A.Clark(Midlin & P'bl's)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden,E.)


Clarry, Reginald George
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Clayton, G. C.
Jacob, A. E.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jephcott, A. R.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Knox, Sir Alfred
Styles. Captain H. Waiter


Cooper, A. Duff
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Cope, Major William
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Templeton, W. P.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Loder, J. de V.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Looker, Herbert William
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Crooke. J Smedley (Deritend)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Tinne, J. A.


Crookshank, Col.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
MacIntyre, Ian
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Davies, Dr. Vernon
McLean, Major A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Macmillan, Captain H.
Waddington, R.


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Drewe, C.
Macquisten. F. A.
Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Eden, Captain Anthony
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Elliot, Major Waiter E.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Ellis, R. G.
Margesson, Captain D.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Watts, Dr. T.


Everard. W. Lindsay
Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.
Wells, S. R.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Meyer, Sir Frank
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple


Fermoy, Lord
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Fielden, E. B.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Finburgh, S.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Ford, Sir P. J.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Winterton, Rt. Hon, Earl


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Womersley, W. J.
Wragg, Herbet
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wood, E.(Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Major Hennessy and Captain


Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)
Bowyer.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Groves, T.
Paling, W.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillisbro')
Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson. John Allen (Wigan)


Ammon, Charles George
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Baker, J. (Wolverhamton, Blleton)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Potts, John S.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hardle, George D.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Barnes, A.
Harney, A.
Richardson, R. (Houghtorn-le Spring)


Barr, J.
Harris, Percy A.
Riley, Ben


Batey, Joseph
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, G. H.
Scrymgeour, E.


Briant, Frank
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sexton, James


Broad. F. A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield).
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'i'd., Hexham)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shleis, Dr. Drummond


Brown, lames (Ayr and Bute)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Buchanan, G.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Snell, Harry


Close, W. S.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kennedy, T.
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Colfox, Major Wm. Philip
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stamford, T. W.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kirkwood, D.
Stephen, Campbell


Compton, Joseph
Lawrence, Susan
Sullivan, J.


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F.
Sutton, J. E.


Crawford, H. E.
Lindley, F. W.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Dalton, Hush
Livingstone, A. M.
Thurtle, E.


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Lowth, T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lunn, William
Townend. A. E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Varley, Frank B.


Day, Colonel Harry
Macklnder, W.
Viant, S. P.


Dennison, R.
MacLaren, Andrew
Wallhead, Richard C.


Duncan, C.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dunnico, H.
March, S.
Welsh, J. C.


Forrest, W.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Westwood, J.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Montague, Frederick
Whiteley, W.


Gardner, J. P.
Morris, R. H.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gibbins, Joseph
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gillett, George M.
Murnin, H.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gosling, Harry
Naylor, T. E.



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greenall, T.
Oliver, George Harold
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Grenfell. D. R. (Glamorgan)
Palin, John Henry
Hayes.

Mr. A. R. KENNEDY: I beg to move, in page 9, line 14, at the end, to insert the words
Provided that there shall be allowed and paid in the case of any manufactured or made-up article exported from Great Britain or Northern Ireland, and consisting wholly or partly of paper subject to the duty imposed by this Section, a drawback equal to the amounts shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners to have been paid as duty on the paper used in the manufacture of the article.
As the House knows, this duty will affect a considerable number of industries which use paper as their raw material for manufactured articles, and the Report of the Commission contains, in Appendix III, a list of some 23 industries which are found to have been affected in that way. The object of this Amendment is to secure some degree of protection to industries using imported paper for the purpose of manufacturing articles for export, and I conceive that,
if it were found in fact to give such protection it would be the wish of the House that the protection should be given. During the course of the Debate earlier in the evening, I was disturbed, as I have been on previous occasions, to find that the President of the Board of Trade did not regard as a matter of great significance the injury that might be done to export businesses in this country which use paper as raw material. Indeed, on the previous occasion, in Committee, he went so far as to say, according to the OFFICIAL REPORT, that the safeguarding of this industry—that is to say, the wrapping paper industry—would not hurt other industries. It is because I am perturbed by that observation, which was contrary, I think, to the finding of the Report, that I venture to remind the House of two or three short passages in the Report itself showing the serious effect upon some industries in this country—small, it may be, but in
the aggregate considerable—of this duty. The Committee said, in paragraph 40 of their Report, with regard to one important branch of the trade affected—namely, the envelope trade, that the exports in that trade were rapidly growing—a healthy and somewhat unusual condition; and they said of it that "a duty would materially prejudice the export trade."
I do not want to go through the catalogue of the industries dealt with in the Report, but, with regard to other minor industries, the Committee, in paragraph 41 of the Report, say that the export business would be gravely prejudiced by such a duty; and they add, in paragraph 64, that the duty would necessarily imply a wide area of disturbance, that it would operate somewhat harshly on these export businesses, and that the effects of the duty could not be localised. Some 23 industries are affected by this duty, and, while gaining nothing from it, will, undoubtedly, according to their evidence, be damnified to a greater or less extent. It is observable that, of these 23 industries, eight only employ, directly by the use of imported paper, more than the whole of the wrapping paper industry. It is not necessary, at this stage of the Debate, to elaborate these considerations, but a fair and judicial consideration of the Committee's Report leads to the conclusion that the President of the Board of Trade, in my submission, was taking far too optimistic a view when he said that the other industries affected would not be injured. For these reasons I commend the object, at any rate, of this Amendment, which is to ensure that a person who manufactures goods out of an imported raw material which is to be taxed shall have the opportunity of proving to the satisfaction of the Committee, when he exports the article, that he has used for the purposes of its manufacture a certain proportion of imported raw material upon which duty has been paid.
I am aware that this matter was raised in Committee, and that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said the difficulties were so numerous and so severe that he could not hold out any hope of relief. I have read again—I have read more than once—his observations on that occasion, and, if he will permit me to say so, I am not entirely satisfied with the
conclusions at which he arrived. I have no personal experience of the working of the Customs in these matters, but I start with this proposition, that, if there be a difficulty in giving relief to these industries, which are affected for no good purpose, that difficulty exists to be overcome, and the Customs ought to devise a method of overcoming it. I should like to give an illustration—it may be an unusual illustration, or it may be not very unusual. There is in my constituency an industry to which I referred in the Debate in Committee, which imports Swedish paper for the purposes of making yarns, twines and other articles of that sort—it makes nothing else. That paper is brought direct to Preston Docks, it is unloaded from ships in the docks, taken to the warehouse and turned into the manufactured article, which is sold and exported and dealt with in the ordinary course of trade. What difficulty, I ask, could really be incurred in arranging that a firm so situated should have a rebate on its imported raw material, which goes through no other hands, is easily traceable, and constitutes the entire raw material of the industry?
There may be other instances. I will take the instance of the English Cellulose Company, who make large quantities of similar goods in Manchester. They make them out of imported Swedish material only, because they say they cannot get it in this country. That material, under this duty, is to be taxed. I have little doubt—though I admit this is only a speculation—that that material comes straight clown the Manchester Ship Canal and is unloaded at the Ship Canal docks and transferred to the factory, which is an economic and reasonable way of handling it. Is there any difficulty which cannot be overcome in saying to these people, "Prove the quantity of imported raw material and we will give you a rebate in proportion to the amount of duty paid." If there is such a difficulty I have yet to hear it. All the Amendment asks for is that the individual adversely affected, whose export trade, according to the Report, is going to be gravely prejudiced, shall have an opportunity of going before the Commissioners and proving his claim. If he cannot prove it it falls to the ground. If he can prove it to the satisfaction of reasonable men why should he not have the opportunity? That is the object of the Amendment.

Mr. HURST: I beg to Second the Amendment.
The only reason I do not speak on it now is that I shall have a few words to say on the next Amendment, which stands in my name.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I think the chief force of the argument used by my hon. Friend in moving the Amendment really ought to have been directed to the last Amendment, because it appeared to me to be very much more relevant to the question whether there should be a duty at all, which has already been decided by the House, rather than to the particular point he has raised with reference to a drawback. He said he read what I said in Committee more than once, and that I entirely failed to convince him of the impossibility of accepting this Amendment. I am afraid in that case I have very little hope of being able to convince him now, because I do not think I can really add anything to what I said in Committee. The real fact of the matter is that the particular sort of drawback my hon. Friend wishes to provide here is entirely inapplicable to the sort of duty that has to be applied. I emphasised and must emphasise again, the fact that the drawback provided in the Bill is the form of drawback which is always applicable to key industry duties and the McKenna Duties. This is not like the duty upon silk or any other ordinary dutiable article, apart from the Safeguarding of Industries, where you have an article on which there is an Excise Duty countervailing the Customs Duty on the imported article. It would be impossible to give such a drawback as my hon. Friend proposes here, because there you can be certain that there is no undutiable raw material which might be used. Consequently if the exporter says, "Here I have an article which contains so many pounds or tons of a particular article which has paid duty," it is quite simple for the Customs authority to examine it and say, "Yes, here is so much material which must have paid duty because it must either have paid Customs Duty or Excise Duty." That seems to be true, of course, of an article on which there is no Excise because there is no supply in this country—for instance—cocoa. But when you come to an article a very large proportion of which is supplied by a
manufacturer in this country and is subject to no Excise Duty, it becomes, I will not say a matter of absolute impossibility, but of very great difficulty and complication When the exporter demands a drawback on the manufactured article, to say, "Here is so much duty-paid material employed." There is no certainty of saying that.
My hon. Friend adduced one or two cases in which he suggested there would be no difficulty in showing the amount of duty-paid material. I do not say there are no cases in which that could be shown, but the point we have to consider is whether there are not a good number of other cases where the allegation might be made or where it would be extremely difficult to prove an affirmative or a negative. It might very well be that the Customs authorities would have no definite assignable reason for rejecting the statement made by the person making the claim. On the other hand, it stands to reason that when a large supply of undutiable material might have been employed it would be almost impossible for them to prove a negative, however much persuaded they might be that it was at any rate a very suspicious case. With regard to the McKenna Duties, we are dealing with articles which may be to a certain extent followed and identified. I admit that there is a great deal of difficulty in actually identifying such a matter as a motor car, but still it can be done, but it is impossible to follow imported paper, and to say, "This is the article that paid duty when it came into the country."
My hon. Friend candidly said he knew nothing about the machinery of the Customs Department. I cannot claim, personally, that I do either, but, of course, I have the advice of the best and most experienced experts in the management of that great Department, and I am advised that if this sort of drawback were allowed on industries of this sort, it would be extremely difficult and most complicated, it would impose a good deal of inconvenience and difficult work upon the Department in carrying it out, and beyond that, it would be so inconsistent with the whole code of the McKenna, Duties, which are subject to this sort of drawback which appears in this Bill, that if we were once to accept a proposition such as that put forward by my hon. Friend, it is clear that if a demand
were made, as it probably would be, we should have to do exactly the same with regard to the other McKenna Duties, which would involve a rearrangement of the whole system on which those articles are subjected to the duty. Under the circumstances I am afraid I have not added anything to what I said before, and I am not likely to have convinced my hon. Friend, but I hope the House will realise that the matter has been most carefully considered from this point of view, and it is only because we feel, on the advice given us, that it would be creating something almost like chaos in the administration of the duties if we were to accept the Amendment that I appeal to the House to support the Government in resisting it.

Mr. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman has given just the reply one would have expected. It may be there would be very practical difficulties, possibly insuperable difficulties, in carrying out the scheme that has been proposed from the Protectionist benches opposite. But what a condemnation this is of the whole theory and practice of Protection. The right hon. Gentleman has given us a first class Free Trade speech. He has made an unanswerable indictment of Tariff Reform. He never for a moment challenged what was the main contention of the hon. Member opposite, namely, that the firm quoted as an instance—which could no doubt be multiplied many times—which imports its raw material from abroad upon which duty is charged, a firm engaged mainly in the export trade, is suffering a serious disadvantage owing to the fact that the cost of its raw material has been very considerably enhanced by the amount of duty that has been placed upon it. That shows that you are going to do more harm indirectly than any good you are

likely to do by the imposition of these duties. I was not at all convinced by the difference the right hon. Gentleman tried to establish between a drawback on motor cars and a drawback such as is proposed by the hon. Member. That is not in the least inconsistent with what I say, that there might be much in the right hon. Gentleman's statement that there would be very many difficulties in carrying out the proposal.

Of course the most effective way would be to pay an Excise officer or a Customs officer to watch this from the time it was unloaded at the docks, through the various processes of manufacture and then watch the manufactured article until it was placed on board for export again. But here again you get an illustration of the cumbersomeness, the inconvenience and the expense of Protection. You are going to spend just as much in the administration of the duty as any revenue you would be likely to get from it. The right hon. Gentleman has said we should have to have an Excise. But there is no Excise on motor cars manufactured in this country. Of course the right hon. Gentleman says it is more easy to identify the material of a motor car than the material that is manufactured into a cardboard box. But the two cases, the differing somewhat in detail, are generally on all fours. My objection, of course, is a general one to the duty as a whole, and the point which has been raised from the Protectionist benches opposite only proves how impracticable and injurious to the trade of the country these duties are.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 135; Noes, 232.

Division No. 373.]
AYES.
[6.45 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Buchanan, G.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Buckingham, Sir H.
England, Colonel A.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Cape, Thomas
Forrest, W.


Ammon, Charles George
Charleton, H. C.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Cluse, W. S.
Gardner, J. P.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Gibbins, Joseph


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Gillett, George M.


Barnes, A.
Compton, Joseph
Gosling, Harry


Barr. J.
Cove, W. G.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Batey, Joseph
Crawford, H. E.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Dalton, Hugh
Greenall, T.


Bentinck. Lord Henry Cavendish-
Davies, David (Montgomery)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Brlant, Frank
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Groves, T.


Broad, F. A.
Day, Colonel Harry
Grundy, T. W.


Bromley, J.
Dennison, R.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'i'd., Hexham)
Duncan, C.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydyil)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Donnico, H.
Hamilton. Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Hardie, George D.
March, S.
Smith, H. B. Lees. (Kelghiey)


Harney, E. A.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Smith. Rennie (Penistone)


Harris, Percy A.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Snell, Harry


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Montague, Frederick
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Hayday, Arthur
Morris, R. H.
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Stamford, T. W.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Murnin, H.
Stephen, Campbell


Hirst, G. H.
Naylor, T. E.
Sullivan, J.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Oliver, George Harold
Sutton, J. E.


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Palin, John Henry
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Paling, W.
Thorne. W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Hurst, Gerald B.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Thurtle, E.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Pethlck-Lawrence, F. W.
Tinker, John Joseph


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Ponsonby. Arthur
Townend, A. E.


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Potts, John S.
Varley, Frank B.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Rees. Sir Beddoe
Vlant, S. P.


Kelly, W. T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Riley, Ben
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Kennedy, T.
Robinson, W. C.(Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Warts Morgan. Lt Col. D. (Rhondda)


Kirkwood. D.
Sakiatvala, Shapurji
Welsh, J. C.


Lawrence, Susan
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Westwood, J.


Lee, F.
Scrymgeour,
Whiteley, W.


Lindley, F. W.
Saxton, James
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Livingstone, A. M.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Lowth, T.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Lunn, William
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)



MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Mackinder, W.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Charles


MacLaren, Andrew
Siesser, Sir Henry H.
Edwards.


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Smillie, Robert



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald


Albery, Irving James
Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Hudson, R.S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hume Sir G. H.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Huntingfield, Lord


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Hurd, Percy A.


Applln, Colonel R. V. K.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hutchison,G.A.Clark (Mldl'n & P'bl's)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Davies, Maj. Geo.F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Atholl, Duchess of
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Drewe, C.
Jacob, A. E.


Balniel, Lord
Eden, Captain Anthony
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Edmondson. Major A. J.
Jephcott, A. R.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Beckett. Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Ellis, R. G.
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Benn, sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Elveden, Viscount
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Betterton, Henry B.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)
Lister, Cunllffe-, Rt. Hon. sir Philip


Birchall. Major J. Dearman
Everard, W. Lindsay
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Blundell, F. N.
Fermoy, Lord
Loder, J. de v.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Fielden, E. B.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Finburgh, S.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Brassey, sir Leonard
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Frece, Sir Walter de
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Briscoe, Richard George
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Maclntyre, Ian


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
McLean, Major A.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Galbraith. J. F. W.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Ganzoni, Sir John
McNeill. Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Gates, Percy
Macquisten, F. A.


Bullock, Captain M.
Globs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel'


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Goff, Sir Park
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt.R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Merriman, F. B.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Charteris, Brigadier-Ganeral J.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Christie, J. A.
Harland, A.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Clarry, Reginald George
Harrison, G. J. C.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Cobb. Sir Cyril
Haslam, Henry C.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Olive


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hawke, John Anthony
Murchison, C. K.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Henderson, Capt. H.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Neville, R. J.


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Conway. Sir W. Martin
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur p.
Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'd.)


Cooper, A. Duff
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Nuttall, Ellis


Cope, Major William
Hilton, Cecil
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St.Marylebone)
Ormsby-Gore. Hon. William


Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Pennefather, Sir John


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H,
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.




Perring, Sir William George
Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Waddington, R.


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Pitcher, G.
Skelton, A. N.
Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Pilditch, Sir Philip
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Smith, R.W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne,C.)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Preston, William
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Price, Major C. W. M.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Raine, W.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden,E.)
Watts, Dr. T.


Ramsden, E.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Wells, S. R.


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
White Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple


Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Storry-Deans, R.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Rentoul, G. S.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Rice, Sir Frederick
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Ropner, Major L.
Styles, Captain H. Walter
Wise, Sir Fredric


Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Womersley, W. J.


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Wood E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Salmon, Major I.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Samuel, A M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Templeton, W. P.
Wragg, Herbert


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Yerburgh. Major Robert D. T.


Sandeman, A. Stewart
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Young, Ht. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-



Sandon, Lord
Tinne, J. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Major Hennessy and Captain


Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Margesson.


Shaw, B. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

Mr. HURST: I beg to move, in page 9, line 18, after the word "to," to insert the words
any wrapping paper which is imported for the sole purpose of being used as raw material for the manufacture in Great Britain or Northern Ireland of carpets, matting, textilose, twine, boxes, bags, or to.
The object of the Amendment is to exempt from the operation of this Clause any wrapping paper imported, for the sole purpose of being used as raw material in the manufacture in Great Britain or Northern Ireland of the articles mentioned in the Amendment. This Amendment represents the pure milk of Conservative theory. It never has been the doctrine of the Conservative party that raw materials should be taxed. Perhaps I may be allowed to quote from what Mr. Chamberlain said in 1903 at Glasgow:
I repeat now, in the most explicit terms, that I do not propose to tax the raw materials which are a necessity of our manufacturing trades.
The raw materials referred to in the Amendment are the raw materials of certain well-recognised and well-known English manufacturing trades. The Amendment refers to those forms of paper imported from abroad upon which the prosperity of the carpet" matting, textilose, twine, box-making and bag-making industries in this country have been built up. The important thing to observe about these particular raw materials is that they are to a very large extent not made in England. The raw material which is used in the carpet

trade and in the matting and textilose trades are only produced by certain well-known mills in Canada and Scandinavia. No such kraft paper is produced at the present time in this country. I think the hon. Member for East Dorset (Mr. Hall Caine) will be the first to admit that no such raw material is now made in England. This paper is imported from abroad as a substitute for jute, because it is cheaper and better than jute. The competing products in foreign industries with which the manufacturers of textilose, matting and carpet in this country have to compete, are not made of paper but made with jute as the raw material. Therefore, by taxing this raw material the Government are handicapping British industry in the home market and also in the foreign markets, where they have to compete with foreign manufactures, the raw materials of which are entirely free of tax.

The House should bear in mind that the usual provision made where the fully manufactured foreign article is to bear the tax does not apply in this case, because the foreign article which contains paper pays no tax, whereas the home-made article pays the tax because there is paper in its composition. In regard to straw paper, the hon. Member for East Dorset, who seems to know much more about this subject than the whole of the Front Bench, will agree that no straw paper is being made at the present time in this country. The reason that the foreign product is used here is because there is nothing of the sort made in England.

Mr. CAINE: I disagree with that statement.

Mr. HURST: I have a letter from a firm of box makers in Manchester, who say:
Probably the most unwarrantable part of the Paper Duty is that on straw paper, which is the raw material of a great portion of our business. There is no straw paper made in this country.
The President of the Board of Trade admitted that
A very inferior imitation is made not from straw but from waste papers, which are afterwards coloured to resemble straw. These are almost useless for box-making purposes.
Those are the words not of partisans, but of people who have to use this particular raw material. Nobody knows more about their own business than the people in the business, and nobody knows less about the internal economy of business than the Board of Trade. That is our case for the exemption from these duties, of what are admittedly the raw materials of English industries, and which are not produced in this country.
I ask the House to support the Amendment, which is founded on Conservative principles and designed to further the interests of British manufacture. I also ask representatives of the Government to bear in mind the irritating effect of these duties upon the people engaged in these industries. At the present time there is a steady drift of those who used to be the reasonably-minded followers of the Liberal party and of the Socialist party, into our ranks. They interpret the levity, of later-day Liberalism as being just as revolting as the revolutionary policy of modern Socialism, and they are coming over to our ranks. Any policy of this sort, which deters people, from accepting the full programme of our party, is to be deplored.
I have another letter from another box maker in Manchester, who says that he is afraid that the attitude of the President of the Board of Trade will cost the Government a very large number of seats at the next Election. He says:
Although I have voted Conservative for the last 30 years, it will probably be the last time.
Second thoughts are best, and I have no doubt that long before the next election this gentleman will have realised that these are proportionately little matters
compared with those big issues on which the fortunes of our country depend, and he will find it necessary to vote Conservative. I have quoted these letters as illustrations of the irritation and annoyance which these proposals of the Government are causing to a large number of dispassionate, non-partisan people, and in the hope that the Government may see light, even at this last moment.

Mr. A. R. KENNEDY: I beg to second the Amendment.

7.0.P.M

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I think my hon. and learned Friend will permit me to say that whether we, who are manufacturers, are engaged in the Board of Trade or in our own business, when we listen to a lecture by a Chancery lawyer on trade we generally learn something. I do not think I can improve on a single word that has been said by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary. In the last remarks he made about an earlier Amendment he put the case for us, and better than I can put it, against this Amendment, the reasons for rejecting which are similar. The right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer has quite accurately described the difficulties that would necessarily intervene if we tried to trace goods to their destination of manufacture. It is not an economic problem, it is a physical impossibility. Box makers and bag makers have supported these duties. If you were to give effect to this Amendment so far as bags are concerned, you would knock the bottom out of the whole scheme, as paper bag makers use roughly one-third of the imports of dutiable paper. It is impossible, administratively, to carry out the idea of my hon. Friend. On page 15 of the Report a point raising the same difficulty as that raised by the one under discussion is exhaustively dealt with by the Committee. They say: "In any case, the task of identifying the constituent material as of foreign and not of home origin would seem insuperable." That is our position in a nutshell. I must therefore ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 137; Noes, 219.

Division No. 374.]
AYES.
[7.4 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Groves, T.
Potts, John S.


Amman, Charles George
Grundy, T. W.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Riley, Ben


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Robinson,W. C. (Yorks,W. R., Elland)


Barnes, A.
Hardle, George D
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Barr. J.
Harris, Percy A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Batey, Joseph
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Scrymgeour, E.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Heyday, Arthur
Scurr, John


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Sexton, James


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Hirst, G. H.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Briant, Frank
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Broad. F. A.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bromley, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hurst, Gerald B.
Smillie, Robert


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Buchanan, G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Cape, Thomas
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snell, Harry


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Stamford, T. W.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Kennedy, T.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kirkwood, D.
Stephen, Campbell


Compton, Joseph
Lawrence, Susan
Sullivan, J.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lee, F.
Sutton, J. E.


Cove. W. G.
Lindley, F. W.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Livingstone, A. M.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Dalton, Hugh
Lowth, T.
Thurtie, E.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Day, Colonel Harry
MacDonald, Rt. Hon.J. R.(Aberavon)
Townend, A. E.


Dennison, R.
Mackinder, W.
Varley, Frank B.


Duncan, C.
MacLaren, Andrew
Viant, S. P.


Dunnico, H.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wellhead, Richard C.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
March, S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edwards, J Hugh (Accrington)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Watts-Morgan, Lt Col. D. (Rhondda)


England, Colonel A.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Welsh, J. C.


Forrest, W.
Montague, Frederick
Westwood, J.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Morris, R. H.
Whiteley. W.


Gardner, J. P.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gibbins, Joseph
Murnin, H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gillett, George M.
Naylor, T. E.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gosling, Harry
Oliver, George Harold



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Palin, John Henry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin.,Cent.)
Paling, W.
Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Hayes.


Greenall, T.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Everard, W. Lindsay


Albery, Irving James
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Fielden, E. B.


Alexander. Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Finburgh, S.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Ford, Sir P. J.


Applln. Colonel R V. K.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Christie, J. A.
Fraser, Captain Ian


Atholl, Duchess of
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Frece, Sir Walter de


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Gadle, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony


Balniel, Lord
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cooper, A. Duff
Ganzoni, Sir John


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Gates, Percy


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cowan, Sir Win. Henry (Islington,N.)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham


Bennett, A. J.
Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Berry, Sir George
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Goff Sir Park


Betterton, Henry B.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Crookshank, Col.H.(Llndsey,Galnsbro)
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Blundell, F. N.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Boothby. R. J. G.
Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Harland, A.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Harrison, G. J. C.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovll)
Haslam. Henry C.


Briscoe, Richard George
Dixon, captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Hawke, John Anthony


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Drewe, C.
Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Brown, Brig .-Gen. H. C. (Berks, NoWb'y)
Edmondson, Major A, J.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Buckingham. Sir H.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Ellis, R. G.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Bullock, Captain M.
Elveden, Viscount.
Hilton, Cecil


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Waston-s.-M.)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St.Marylebone)




Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Nuttall, Ellis
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Hopkins, J. W. W.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Storry-Deans, R.


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Huntingfield, Lord
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Hurd, Percy A.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hutchison, G.A.Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Perring, Sir William George
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Jacob, A. E.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Templeton, W. P.


Jephcott, A. R.
Preston, William
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Price, Major C. W. M.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Raine, W.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Ramadan, E.
Tinne, J. A.


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Tichfield, Major the Marquess of


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Rantoul, G. S.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Loder, J. de V.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vera
Rice, Sir Frederick
Waddington, R.


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Ropner, Major L.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Salmon, Major I.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Macmillan, Captain H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Watts, Dr, T.


Macquisten, F. A.
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Wells, S. R.


MacRobert, Alexander M.
sanders, Sir Robert A.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Sanderson, Sir Frank
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sandon, Lord
Williams, Com. C. (Devon. Torquay)


Margesson, Captain D.
Sassoon Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Merriman, F. B.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Meyer, Sir Frank
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Shaw, Capt. Waiter (wilts, Westb'y)
Wolmer, Viscount


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Womersley, W. J.


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Wood, E. (Chest'r- Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Smith,R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)
Yerburgh. Major Robert D. T.


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)



Murchison, C. K.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Stanley, Cal. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden,E.)
Major Sir Harry Barnston and




Major Cope.

Sir R. BIRD: I beg to move, in page 9, line l8, after the word "to," to insert the words " straw paper."
I do not propose to repeat the remarks I have already made on a previous Amendment on this subject.

Major COLFOX: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: This Amendment has, I think, by arrangement, been fully discussed before. The points were raised on the first discussion and I replied to them then. I take it it is unnecessary to do so again.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 133; Noes, 209.

Division No. 375.]
AYES.
[7.12 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Colfox, Major Wm. Philip
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Collins. Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Ammon, Charles George
Compton, Joseph
Groves, T.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cove, W. G.
Grundy, T. W.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Crawfurd, H. E.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Day, Colonel Harry
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Barr, J.
Dennison, R.
Hardie, George D.


Batey, Joseph
Duncan, C.
Harris, Percy A.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Dunnico, H.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Bentinck. Lord Henry Cavendish-
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hayday, Arthur


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Briant, Frank
England, Colonel A.
Hirst, G. H.


Broad, F. A.
Forrest, W.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Bromley, J.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Moseley)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Gardner, J. P.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Gibbins, Joseph
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Buchanan, G.
Gillett, George M.
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Cape. Thomas
Gosling. Harry
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)


Charleton, H. C.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Cluse, W. S.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Kelly, W. T.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Greenall, T.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Kennedy, T.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Lawrence, Susan
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Stamford, T. W.


Lee, F.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Stephen, Campbell


Lindley, F. W.
Potts, John S.
Sullivan, J.


Livingstone, A. M.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Sutton, J. E.


Lowth, T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Lunn, William
Riley, Ben
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon.J. R.(Aberavon)
Robinson,W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Ellond)
Thurtle, E.


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Tinker, John Joseph


Mackinder, W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Townend, A. E.


MacLaren, Andrew
Scrymgeour, E.
Varley, Frank B.


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Scurr, John
Vlant, S. P.


March, S.
Sexton, James
Wallhead, Richard C.


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Montague, Frederick
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Welsh, J. C.


Morris, R. H.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Westwood, J.


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Whiteley, W.


Murnin, H.
Smillie, Robert
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Naylor, T. E.
Smith, H. B. Less- (Keighley)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Oliver, George Harold
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Palin, John Henry
Snell, Harry



Paling, W.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Hayes.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Edmondson, Major A. J.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Albery, Irving James
Elliot, Major Waiter E.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Ellis, R. G.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Elveden, Viscount
Macquisten, F. A.


Alien, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Atholl, Duchess of
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Fielden, E. B.
Margesson, Captain D.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Finburgh, S.
Merriman, F. B.


Balniel, Lord
Ford, Sir P. J.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Fraser, Captain Ian
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Frece, Sir Walter de
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Bennett, A. J.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Berry, Sir George
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Betterton, Henry B.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Ganzoni, Sir John
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Gates, Percy
Murchison, C. K.


Blundell, F. N.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Neville, R. J.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Goff Sir Park
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Nuttall, Ellis


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Gunston, Captain D. W.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Briscoe, Richard George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Harland, A.
Perkins. Colonel E. K.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks,Newb'y)
Harrison, G. J. C.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hawke, John Anthony
Pitcher, G.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Bullock, Captain M.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Preston, William


Cayzer,Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford,
Raine, W.


Cecil. Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hilton, Cecil
Ramsden, E.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Rentoul, G. S.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Holier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Rice, Sir Frederick


Christie, J. A.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Ropner, Major L.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hume, Sir G. H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hurd, Percy A.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hutchison, G.A.Clark (Mldl'n & P'bl's)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Cooper, A. Duff
Jacob, A. E.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Jephcott, A. R.
Sandon, Lord


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Lister, Cunilffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)


Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovll)
Lode', J. de V.
Smith,R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Drewe, C.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.




Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden,E.)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple


Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Tune, J. A.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-colonel George


Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough
Wise, sir Fredric


Starry-Deans, R.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Wolmer, Viscount


Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Waddington, R.
Womersley, W. J.


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wallace, Captain D. E.
Wood, E. (Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Styles, Captain H. Waiter
Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L.(Kingston-on Hull)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Sudden, Sir Wilfrid
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wragg, Herbert


Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Tasker, Major R. Inigo
Watson. Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)



Templeton, W. P.
Watts, Dr. T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Wells, S. R.
Major Cope and Captain Viscount


Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Curzon.

Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: I beg to move, in page 9, line 18, after the word "to," to insert the words "vulcanising paper, vulcanised fibre."
I understand that the Government are making some concession in regard to this, and therefore I will only move it formally.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. SAMUEL: I think the hon. Member has put this Amendment down owing to some fears he has, and in some degree I shall show them to be groundless. Paper used for vulcanising is not imported into this country in any appreciable quantity. If it were it would be almost impossible to trace it to its destination in manufacture. The views of the Committee expressed on page 15 of the Report, and I have already read the applicable extract, have equal force in relation to this Amendment we are now discussing. It is a physical difficulty. As regards vulcanised fibre, that does not come within the scope of the Bill and is not taxed. Therefore the hon. Member need have no fear of it being subject to tax. These explanations will probably satisfy the hon. Member, and I suggest, therefore, that he should withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: May I make one point clear. The announcement which has been made means that the Government are prepared to admit into this country the finished article and are going to tax the raw material, out of which that article is made, up to 16⅔ of its value. I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment, but I want the House and the country to realise what the Government are doing.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following Amendments stood on the Order Paper

In page 9, line 20, after the first "paper," insert "papers which are im-

ported for the purpose of being converted into wall paper or envelopes."—[Mr. Mackenzie Livingstone.]

In page 9, line 23, at end, insert
(3) There shall he allowed and paid in the case of any manufactured or made article exported from Great Britain or Northern Ireland a drawback equal to the amount shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners to have been paid as duty on the paper used for packing or wrapping."—[Sir John Marriott.]

Mr. SPEAKER: The first Amendment has already been covered by a decision of the House, and the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) is out of order, because it will involve a tax upon the subject.

CLAUSE 13.—(A Iteration of duties On licenses for mechanically-propelled vehicles.)

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: I beg to move, in page 10, line 19, at the end, to insert the words
Provided that this Section and any of the rates of duties set out in the First Schedule to this Act shall not apply to any mechanically-propelled vehicle used solely for the conveyance of employed persons to and irons their place of employment.
This question has not been discussed before. I made a statement the other night, and the Minister of Transport promised to consider it. I look upon this question as one of great importance affecting the whole of the mining districts of this country. I am asking that vehicles which are used solely and exclusively for the purpose of conveying working people to their work, and which cannot be used for any other purpose, shall he exempt from this new taxation. The point is a simple one. I have discussed the matter with the Minister of Transport, and although I had the best of the argument, he did not agree with me. But I find that the report of the Chief Constable of Monmouthshire confirms what
I said as to the fact that these vehicles are used exclusively for this purpose and cannot be used for any other, and that it is quite possible to keep them under observation. I am not asking for any relief for any vehicles which can be used for other services—

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;

The house went; and, having returned,

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Secretaries of State Act, 1926.
2. Re-election of Ministers Act, 1919 (Amendment) Act, 1926.
3. Boards of Guardians (Default) Act, 1926.
4. Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Act, 1926.
5. Land Drainage Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 1) Act, 1926.
6. Provisional Order (Marriages) Confirmation (No. 2) Act, 1926.
7. North Berwick Burgh Extension Order Confirmation Act, 1926.
8. Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation Act, 1926.
9. Falmouth Docks Act, 1926.
10. Bermondsey Borough Council (Street Trading) Act, 1926.
11. Mid-Nottinghamshire Joint Railways Act, 1926.
12. Rhymney Valley Water Act, 1926
13. Shoreham Harbour Act, 1926.
14. Bethlem Hospital Act, 1926.
15. Trent Falls Improvement Act, 1926.
16. Port of London Act, 1926.
17. Pontefract Corporation Act, 1926.

And to the following Measures passed under the Provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919:

1. Ecclesiastical Commissioners Measure, 1926.
2. First Fruits and Tenths Measure, 1926.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL.

As amended, again considered.

Mr. EDWARDS: I was talking about the Report we have received from the police, confirming the position I have
taken up that those vehicles could be used for nothing except taking miners to and from their work. If there are other industries in the country in a similar position, where vehicles can only be used for that kind of purpose, then I say that they, too, ought to be exempted from this tax. We say that a tax of this sort would be unfair. There might be a dozen men, or 20, 30, or 40—it depends on the size of the vehicle—who would use the same vehicle from one twelvemonths to the next, and we contend that it is unfair to put a tax of from £6 to £14, which the new rules would mean, upon these few men. They would have to share the extra cost that would be put on the general community the same as anybody else, and this would be a tax directly put upon these few people using these vehicles. The vehicles are laid up for the week-end and cannot be used for any other purpose, whereas in most industries the vehicles that convey people to and from their work morning and evening are used by day for other purposes, so that this tax would be put upon the general public in that case, and not upon a few people, as in the case with which I am dealing. I hope that we shall have a favourable reply to this demand, and I hope also that the other hon. Members whose names have been put down to this Amendment will be allowed to speak before the Minister rises. We look upon the proposal in the Bill as unfair to the whole of the mining community, and, therefore, if the Minister cannot meet us, I shall certainly divide the House on this Amendment.

Mr. TINKER: I beg to second the Amendment.
The Minister of Transport, when this question was raised during the Committee stage, was not quite sure what it meant, and he asked to be allowed to consider it. In many of the mining districts there is no housing accommodation, and I could quote several instances where pits are closed down and men have to pass along to other places for a matter of some six or eight miles. The colliery company, in order to get the men there, provide conveyances, but the men have got to pay for the hire of the vehicles. In some cases the colliery companies provide the conveyances, but in other cases they are provided by other people. If this tax is put on, the men will have to bear it themselves, and I want the Minister to con-
sider it in that light. Already these men suffer hardship from having to travel long distances to their work, without having to bear the additional cost of the tax that is now proposed. I would also remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Royal Commission had some regard for men who have to go to other areas, and in a smaller degree that applies to these men. I, therefore, think the Minister might consider it from the standpoint of what the Royal Commission has done. Here is a case of hardship that has been recognised in a greater degree by the Royal Commission, and we are appealing on these lines for some consideration to be given to a body of men who are already suffering hardship through having to travel long distances to their work.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): The House will appreciate the great danger there is, if the Government once begin to make exceptions, that those exceptions will be used as a lever to get other concessions. Since the Committee stage another Amendment on the same lines has appeared on the Paper, namely, to exempt vehicles which carry food, and I cannot conceive, if you make exceptions in regard to vehicles taking miners to their work and then proceed to exempt food vehicles, why you should not go on and exempt drink vehicles and any other form of vehicle. I am afraid the Government cannot accept this Amendment, because what we have to deal with is the damage done by these vehicles to the roads, and not the people who use these vehicles. I would remind the House that in 1920, when the petrol tax was in operation, doctors got a rebate because they were considered to be a class which performed a specially useful service to the community, but later it was decided that there was to be no differentiation on the ground of the people who used the cars, but that the charge was to be made in respect to the damage which the cars did to the roads.
The Mover and Seconder of the Amendment conveyed the impression that this would be a considerable tax on the users of these vehicles. I will take the highest figure that can be taken, namely, £14. A little calculation will show that £14 is 280s I calculate that a vehicle, such as has been described, would be used 280 days out of the 365 in the year, and there-
fore we find, roughly, that the tax on the vehicle is 1s. a day. We have been given the figure of 35 or 40 as the number of the people using the vehicle, but it may be assumed that 24 is the more probable number. That means that, at a shilling a day, every person at the maximum rate would pay ½d. a day of the tax. These vehicles will in many cases de more than one journey there and back in a day. Therefore, if you divide your tax by half, the whole thing means a penny farthing a week per head to cover the tax. I do submit that it is not justifiable in view of the damage that is done to the roads to make an exception of the kind that is asked.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I should like to take the Minister's arguments one by one. First of all, we have his objection in regard to making an exception to the general rule. He says that, if he accepted this Amendment to benefit miners, he would be called upon to deal with vehicles conveying food or even beer and whisky. That does not seem to fit the case. The right hon. Gentleman must know that at present there is an exception. The conveyance which is used for hiring purposes is taxed at the different rate from the vehicle used for ordinary industrial purposes. There is the exception and there is the precedent, and the submission we are making is that where a body of workmen have to provide themselves with a vehicle to convey themselves to work, then the least tax possible ought to be imposed upon them. The vehicle is not used for profit-making in the ordinary sense. It is used to convey the men and to enable them to attend work. I could quote a case, which I suppose might be multiplied many times over. It is a case where a fairly large number of men are employed in a colliery which is three to three and a-half miles from where they live. In inclement weather it was usual for many men to have to lose one to two days' work a week. Then they provided themselves with a vehicle, and absenteeism was very quickly reduced. The fact that these men had to make provision to convey themselves backwards and forwards to work at least justifies them in asking that the least tax ought to be imposed upon them because of that provision. I understand that, at a previous stage, the
Minister of Transport said that some communication had been received from Yorkshire, from a chief constable to whom inquiry had been submitted, and who said that the number of vehicles employed exclusively for this purpose was very small indeed. That may or may not be true, but, if the number is small, the concession would be small, and the exception would not form a precedent for others to appeal to.
With regard to payment, the right hon. Gentleman very ingeniously worked out a mathematical table showing that the tax would not cost much to the men. But he must remember that the £14 is only a portion of the tax. If you take the whole tax, you will see that the few coppers per this, added to the few coppers for insurance, for hospitals, for Dr. Barnardo's Homes, and for the various other things or which deductions are made, constitute a formidable deduction from a wage which sometimes scarcely reaches 30s. a week. The right hon. Gentleman said that motor taxation is based on the damage done to the roads, but would the right hon. Gentleman say that a heavy vehicle used for industrial purposes does no more damage to a road than a motor vehicle merely used for conveying men to and from their work? Unless he would make that statement, and I do not think he would, his argument about damage to the road falls to the ground immediately. The ordinary industrial vehicle carrying bricks or mortar or any other heavy luggage will be running several hours a day, while the workman's motor merely goes to the pit and makes possibly only two journeys a day backwards and forwards, and the damage to the road would be comparatively very small. I suggest that none of the arguments submitted by the right hon. Gentleman meets the case, and I think he might very well grant the concession under the exceptional circumstances.

Major CRAWFURD: I wish to support this Amendment. I notice the Minister for Transport consulting with his right hon. colleague the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and I hope that consultation may lead to the acceptance of this proposal. The reply of the Minister of Transport is very disappointing, and it
does not meet the case. He says that, if he makes this concession, it will be used as a lever to force other concessions. That may be so, but let him meet it on its merits and meet all the others on their merits. He says he cannot consider the Amendment because the whole basis of these duties is the damage done to the roads. If the right hon. Gentleman or his colleagues had kept to that principle throughout the Budget, there would be something in their contention. But they have not done so. In the case of pleasure vehicles, we now understand that one-third of the licence duties on such vehicles is to be paid in respect to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer calls the luxury aspect of the car. If you pay a luxury tax or an additional tax for luxury, why cannot you have a rebate for a necessity? The right hon. Gentleman recalled the days of the Motor Spirit Duty, when the doctors' vehicles were taxed below the full amount, and then that allowance for doctors was taken away. I suggest that, with the very strong hope that I think most hon. Members have, that by the time next year's Budget comes we shall revert to a Motor Spirit Duty, he may reasonably make this exception, because this will be an additional payment for one year only.
I do not quite agree with the calculation made by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) just now about the pence. Let us give right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench the benefit of every doubt, and they will still be wrong. It may be that by dividing this additional tax by the number of weeks the vehicle is used in a year and the number of people conveyed, it can be shown that this is an infinitesimal burden, but that does not get at the kernel of the business. The point made by the Seconder of the Amendment is that, in certain colliery districts where an old pit closes and a new one is opened and men live a few miles from their work, the management of the colliery sometimes provide vehicles which enable the men to be conveyed to their work instead of having to walk. It is not a case of the additional 2d. on each man, but what is to happen is that the person who has to pay down £12 for a vehicle of that sort will not run it at all. These men will then have to do without a vehicle all together and will be compelled to walk to
their work. I hope, therefore, the Minister, in consultation with his colleagues on the Treasury Bench, Rill agree to grant this concession.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. DUNCAN: Supposing, for the sake of argument, that this tax were in operation; those vehicles, which only make a few journeys a day, would only, if the petrol tax were enforced, pay taxation on the amount of petrol used. That would be to their advantage. There can he no doubt at all that the vehicles which convey people do not do damage to the roads; that damage is done by the vehicles which convey merchandise. It is the omnibuses that are constantly doing 16 hours a day over the same part of the road that chew the road up and do an enormous amount of damage. It is under my observation every day. Whatever taxation you put on them you never meet the damage they do to the road. On this ground especially, considering that this Government is passing or has passed legislation through this House which is

certainly going to do a great deal of damage to the miners, they might at least give this little consideration to this particular class of miners. There is every reason why this concession should be given.

Mr. JOHN BAKER: The Minister says it is only a matter of coppers a week, but there are 300 men in my constituency alone who have to pay cit of their earnings every week 12s. 6d. for travelling. The contractor who takes them does not deal in halfpennies, but will charge 6d., making the amount 13s. per week. Nothing is said about the 13½ per cent, reduction. Hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House gibe at this reduction, but the House should not make things impossible for the miners. That is what you are doing by reducing in one direction and piling it up in another.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill

The House divided: Ayes, 113; Noes, 193.

Division No. 376.]
AYES
[8.4 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-spring)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hardie, George D.
Riley, Ben


Ammon, Charles George
Hayday, Arthur
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hayes, John Henry
Scrymgeour, E.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Scurr, John


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, G. H.
Sexton, James


Barr. J.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Batey, Joseph
Hors-Belisha, Leslie
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Briant, Frank
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Broad, F. A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sitch, Charles H.


Bromley, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Snell, Harry


Cape, Thomas
Kennedy, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Charleton, H. C.
Kirkwood,
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Close, W. S.
Lawrence, Susan
Stamford, T. W.


Clynes, Right Hon. John R.
Lee, F.
Stephen, Campbell


Compton, Joseph
Lindley, F. W.
Sullivan, J.


Dalton, Hugh
Livingstone, A. M.
Sutton, J. E.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lowth, T.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Thurtle, E.


Day, Colonel Harry
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J.R.(Aberavon)
Tinker, John Joseph


Dennison, R.
Mackinder, W.
Townend, A. E.


Duncan, C.
MacLaren, Andrew
Varley, Frank B.


Dunnico, H.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Viant, S. P.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
March, S.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Gardner, J. P.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gibbins, Joseph
Montague, Frederick
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gillett, George M.
Morris, R. H.
Welsh, J. C.


Gosling, Harry
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Westwood, J.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Murnin, H.
Whiteley, W.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Greenall, T.
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Palin, John Henry
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Groves, T.
Paling, W.



Grundy, T. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES —


Hall, F. (York., W.R., Norrnanton)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Potts, John S.
Allen Parkinson.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Albery, Irving James
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Pitcher, G.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Ganzonl, Sir John
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Gates, Percy.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Preston, William


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Price, Major C. W. M.


Atholl, Duchess of
Grant, Sir J. A.
Raine, W.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Ramsden, E.


Barclay-Harvey C. M.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Remer, J. R.


Bennett, A. J.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Rhys. Hon. C. A. U.


Berry, Sir George
Harland, A.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Betterton, Henry B.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Ropner, Major L.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Harrison, G. J, C.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hawke, John Anthony
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Blundell. F. N.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Brass, Captain W.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hilton, Cecil
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Briscoe, Richard George
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St.Marylebone)
Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Smith, R. w. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne,C)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Huntingfield, Lord
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Hurd, Percy A.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hutchison,G.A.Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Cayzer, Maj, Sir Herbt.R.(Prtsmth.S.)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Jacob, A. E.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Christie, J. A.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Storry-Deans, R.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Jephcott, A. R.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Clarry, Reginald George
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kennedy. A. R. (Preston)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Lamb, J. O.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Colfox, Major Wm. Philip
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Templeton, W. P.


Cope, Major William
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Isllngtn., N.)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Macquisten, F. A.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Crookshank.Cpt.H. (Llndsey,Galnsbro)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Cunllffe, Sir Herbert
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Waddington, R.


Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry
Makins. Brigadier-General E.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Margesson, Captain D.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Merriman, F. B.
Watts. Dr. T.


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Meyer, Sir Frank
Wells, S. R.


Drewe, C.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
White, Lieut. Col. Sir G. Dalrymple


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Ellis, R. G.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


England, Colonel A.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Wise, Sir Fredric


Erskine, Lord (Somerset,weston-s-M.)
Neville, R. J.
Womersley. W. J.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L, (Exeter)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Wragg, Herbert


Fielden, E. B.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Finburgh, S.
Nuttall. Ellis



Ford, Sir P. J.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Major Sir Harry Barnston and


Forrest, W.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Captain Bowyer.


Frece, Sir Walter de
Peto. Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Mr. SNOWDEN: rose—

Mr. SMEULEY CROOKE: On a point of Order. I notice that my Amendment to Clause 13 has not been called. I am given to understand that Mr. Speaker has decided it is out of order. May I know the reason why it is out of order, in view of the fact that the preceding Amendment has been allowed?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is out of order because the word "foodstuffs" is indefinite. Some will deny and some will affirm that beer is a foodstuff or that tea is a foodstuff, and in the absence of any definition of the word "foodstuff" the Amendment falls.

Mr. CROOKE: I bow to your ruling, Sir, but may we not get some assistance
from tile Table in a case of this kind, instead of being allowed to bring these things forward and not know whether we .are at fault?

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the hon. Member had put down a definition of foodstuffs the Amendment would have been in order, but apart from that there is the further question of the relative importance of Amendments to be selected by the Speaker.

Mr. CROOKE: Is it not evident that the word "foodstuffs" applied to those articles which are restricted?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The term is too indefinite.

CLAUSE 15.—(Betting Duty.)

Mr. SNOWDEN: Before I move my Amendment to leave out the Clause may I ask for your guidance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has put down Amendments which make a very considerable difference in the incidence of this duty. May I ask if on my Amendment we shall be at liberty to, as it were, have a prospective discussion of the Amendments which the Chancellor of the Exchequer may move? May I suggest that if you are able to do that it would much facilitate progress. It would, of course, be on the understanding that there would be no discussion when the Amendments are moved.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This is one of these matters in which the Chair must be guided by the opinion of the House. I should be perfectly willing to allow Divisions on all Amendments on the Paper to take place if it is to be understood that there will not be a, separate discussion on the separate provisions of each Amendment. If no objection be raised, I should be glad to fall in with the suggestion.

Mr. McNEILL: So far as my right hon. Friend is concerned I think he will be quite prepared to fall in with the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I think, under the circumstances, it would be most economical in time and certainly most convenient in method. My right hon. Friend has made proposals to alter the original text and to take them in conjunction with the Motion of the right
hon. Gentleman would make it more convenient.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I take it that this is agreed.

HON, MEMBERS: Agreed!

Mr. SNOWDEN: I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.
I do not propose to say very much in submitting this Amendment to the House as I have already spoken at some length on this proposal when this Bill was in Committee. I then submitted all the arguments of which I could think, which, in our opinion justified the opposition then put forward. I shall not repeat any of those general arguments, to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made no reply. The right hon. Gentleman has two methods of answering his opponents. The first is to point out that those who are opposed to some proposal which he has made, advance arguments or make statements which appear to contradict each other. The Chancellor of the Exchequer then jumps to the conclusion that his opponents have answered themselves, and that there is no case worthy of his consideration. The other favourite argument of the Chancellor, with which we have been made very familiar, is, where he cannot defend a proposal on its merits, to say it is supported by overwhelming public opinion. He stated that in his speech on the conclusion of the Debate on the Betting Duty, when this Bill was in Committee. He said it was supported by a preponderance of public opinion and his right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury apparently agreed with him.
If it be supported by a preponderance of public opinion, it certainly was not supported in the Division Lobby that night by a preponderance of the Tory Members of this House. That very tax was carried in Committee by what is, I believe, the smallest majority this Government have ever bad on any proposal of importance. They have, I think, 425 Members in this House, and after all the whipping up of their supporters into the Lobby on that occasion, they were able to show in favour of this Betting Duty only 231 votes, and a majority of only 79. A number of the supporters of the Government actually voted against this tax, and it was well
known that there were nearly 200 Tory abstentions. There are 425 Tory Members, of whom only 231 voted in favour of the duty, leaving 194, and even allowing for some who voted against the duty, we find that nearly 200 abstained on that occasion for one reason or another. It is perfectly well known that the great majority of them did not care to go into the Lobby against the Government, but they were not prepared to go into the Lobby in support of the Betting Duty. There is not a shadow of support for the claim of the right hon. Gentleman that he has the support even of a united party, much less a preponderance of public opinion. He has not the support of his own Cabinet. There have been rumours, of course, of a division in the Cabinet on this question. What I may describe as the evangelical members of the Cabinet are well known to have been strongly opposed to the duty.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): Who are they?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman asks me who are the evangelical members of the Cabinet. I do not think there is sufficient imagination in this House to assume that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could be put into that category and I will not be more definite than to say that the evangelical members of the Cabinet are those members of the Cabinet who appear upon the platforms of the Evangelical Alliance. We know now there is a great deal of foundation for the rumours which have been circulated as to a division in the Cabinet. I do not profess to know what is the cause of it, but I remember last year, when the present Minister of Agriculture was the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, he made some blazing indiscretions in regard to the Finance Bill in a public speech in his constituency. Now, there appeared a very interesting sidelight upon what had been going on in the Cabinet, in regard to this Betting Duty in the newspapers on Sunday and Monday last. The present Minister of Agriculture was speaking in his constituency—at least it was at Elveden and I do not know whether that place is in his constituency or not—but at all events he declared:
It had been alleged in the Press that he stated during the by-election that there would be no betting tax. That was absolutely without foundation. What he said was that there was no betting tax under consideration; and if it came under consideration, he would oppose it and point out the difficulties to the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and his colleagues in the Cabinet. He had already done so. He had urged the difficulties in Committee and in full Cabinet, and they would not expect him—a Conservative Minister—to throw over the Conservative party and join the Socialist party because he could not get his own way in every detail.
If there were other members of the Cabinet as indiscreet 'as the Minister of Agriculture, I am sure we should get other interesting information as to the Cabinet view of this duty. I am quite sure it is a great compliment to the pertinacity and influence of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he has been able to overcome strong opposition within his own Cabinet and his own party, and has succeeded, so far, in imposing this tax upon the country. In his reply to my speech on a former occasion, he said that I had abandoned the contention or argument that there were any mechanical difficulties in the way of levying this tax. I said so at that time, and it will be remembered that my main objections to this tax were that I did not think it was a good policy for the revenue of the country to be raised from such a source. I had sent to me the other day a letter from a man who is, I assume, in some Government service, because he forwards this extract from the Post Office Rules:
Betting and gambling in any shape or form are forbidden, and are regarded as serious offences. Any servant of the Department who is concerned in either renders himself liable to dismissal.
I suppose that Rule will be repealed when the betting duty comes into operation.

Mr. McNEILL: A question on that point was put to me by an hon. Member in the House, and I then gave the answer that there was no more reason for repealing that rule than there was for allowing hon. Members to smoke in this House because they paid the tax on tobacco.

Mr. SNOWDEN: That, perhaps, is a rather smart way of dealing with the matter, but it is perfectly inconsistent, and I do not admit that even the smart rejoiner of the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary meets the point at all.
It does not mean that betting and gambling in the office is wrong, and not wrong elsewhere. We had the revelation in the case which had been raised at Question Time where a Post Office servant was dismissed, not for gambling in the office, but for grave irregularities which were said to be the result of gambling elsewhere. So that we have this anomalous position: that it is a most serious offence, according to this standard, to indulge in betting or gambling, yet the State give its patronage to it, and is receiving considerable revenue from the encouragement of this serious offence!
How is the right hon. Gentleman going to get over the mechanical difficulties that may arise? How can he defend the tax which he is going to apply in one case only, while he is going to exempt betting in another case, when the two transactions are carried out under almost precisely the same conditions It will be perfectly illogical to attempt to defend the distinction. I should have thought that there was a great deal more to be said for the taxation of what is called street betting than for taxation of the other kind. Whether that be so or not—and the Chancellor knows what was said by his officals who gave evidence before the Committee on betting—if you once begin to tax betting you must go on to its logical conclusion and tax every form of betting. The matter came before the Committee presided over by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley).
May I again, leaving out of consideration the moral issue—which perhaps for the moment is irrelevant—deal with the right hon. Gentleman who defends this tax solely on the ground that it will produce revenue? If that is the reason for imposing this tax why is he going to abandon taxation upon such a large proportion of betting It may be true that the amount of money involved in betting which will be duty free is not so large an amount as that involved in the betting that will be taxed, but surely it is a new principle in revenue law and practice altogether to put a, duty upon one of two things which are identical. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman must ultimately be driven to extend the betting duty on all forms of betting, and he can
only do that by the licensing of betting houses set up in every part of the land.
I want now to say a word or two on the Amendments which are to he moved later by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I say now what I said on a previous occasion. I saw no difficulty in effectively collecting the duty because the amount at that time was a good arithmetical number of 5 per cent. The Chancellor now proposes to make the duty 31 per cent. on credit betting and 2 per cent. on cash betting. How in the world are you going to calculate arid collect this 2 per cent. duty upon the racecourse? A good deal of racecourse betting is, I understand, in comparatively small amounts. I believe some people put on a shilling. [An HON. MEMBER: "A bob'!"] Others half-a-crown; others larger sums. How is it going to work out? What is a 2 per cent. duty on half-a-crown? It will be two farthings and two-fifths. On a 5s. bet it will be four farthings and four-fifths, and so on. I shall be interested to know how this duty is going to be levied. One suggestion that has been made is that the authorities are going to issue tickets to collect the duty in somewhat the same way as the Entertainments Duty is collected. It cannot be done. It seems to me, therefore, that this duty is going to take a great deal more out of the pockets of the people than it is going to bring into the Exchequer. It is much easier to calculate the value of the 32 per cent. on the credit betting. In dealing with this aspect of the case I understand that sometimes large sums are involved. Therefore, it is much easier to collect the 31 per cent.
Just one further observation. The Chancellor, when he introduced this duty, announced that it would be 5 per cent. He was supposed to be in possession of all the facts as to the amount of money which passed in betting in the course of the year. It is not to be assumed—or, at any rate, we ought not to assume—that the Chancellor comes to this House and throws his proposal on the Table without having given it proper consideration! But that is the practice of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. He tables his proposals first, and then he thinks about them afterwards. We had exactly the same experience last year. He proposed Silk Duties. As soon as
expert criticism was brought to bear upon them they were proved to be utterly impracticable and foolish, and the right hon. Gentleman was compelled, in passing the Bill through Committee, radically to amend them in all their more important aspects. This year he proposed this duty at 5 per cent.; now he proposes 3 per cent. and 2 per cent.
What is the reason for the change? One reason, a very extraordinary reason to move a Chancellor of the Exchequer, is that he thinks a 5 per cent. tax would bring in far too much money. He estimated the revenue at about £6,000,000 a year when the tax was originally proposed. I have heard, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will deny it, that one of the reasons which has induced him to make this Amendment is that a 5 per cent. tax might bring in £12,000,000 or £18,000,000, and the right hon. Gentleman recoils from the prospect of having a surplus next year of £10,000,000 or £18,000,000. [interruption.] The only thing which I think would justify this tax, especially if the rate were maintained at the figure originally proposed, is that it would become most fruitful in the last year the right hon. Gentleman is likely to occupy his present position, and, therefore, there would be something of a nest egg for his successor, who, perhaps, might not have his moral compunction so highly developed as to refuse to take advantage of it.
As I have said, the main point to discuss this evening is the proposal which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will shortly submit to the House, and I shall look forward to what he has to say about the practicability of these proposals with very great interest; and although I have not to-night urged at such length or with so much force the moral objections and the other objections that we have advanced on a former occasion, it must be distinctly understood that we still hold all the objections to this tax which have been repeatedly stated in this House, believing it to be vicious on moral grounds and, as an instrument of taxation, one which no country like our own ought to have.

Mr. RUSSELL: I daresay it has been the experience of most hon. Members, as it has been mine, in the course of the past week or two, and, indeed, since the
day when the Budget was introduced, to be inundated with communications regarding this tax. In my case the vast majority of these communications have protested against the tax, and urged me to do what I could to persuade the Government against it, and to warn them of the consequences which many people believe will ensue; consequences, some think, disastrous to the financial prestige of the nation, and, as many others think, disastrous to the character and the morals of the people. I confess I have been impressed by the number of these communications, and I have been impressed also by the weight of authority behind many of the writers; many of them well known for the keen and practical interest which they have long taken in social matters, and many of them representing powerful organisations whose opinion on this subject ought to he carefully considered. From my own constituency I have received many communications of that kind from representative people whose opinion I greatly value, and I am glad that the vote which I shall give to-night will not be a silent vote, and that I have this opportunity of saying why it is that I have had no hesitation hitherto about supporting this tax, and have no hesitation whatever in supporting it in the remaining stages of this Finance Bill.
My main reasons for supporting the Clause are two. One is that it is a good tax. From a revenue point of view there is much to be said for it. We have many taxes that are not good taxes for the reason that they violate certain principles and maxims which have been laid down a long time and which test whether a tax is a good or a bad one. The principles by which this tax can be tested are these. It will be a productive tax. I have listened to the Debates, and, so far as I can remember, not a single speaker has suggested that this tax will not prove productive, though there is a difference of opinion as to how productive it will be. The hon. Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) is of opinion that £10,000,000 or even £12,000,000 may well be looked for. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is more modest, his expectations are not quite so high; but I have certainly not heard anyone in this House say that the hopes and expectations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be disappointed, It is a tax which
will be equitable in its incidence. As far as I am concerned, it is a tax that I shall probably completely avoid, not that I indulge—at least not often—in street betting; bat because it is only very, very occasionally that I bet at all; and, for that matter, everyone can avoid the tax by following my example.
Another reason why I think this tax should stand is that it will be easily collected. I have heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) make many speeches, but not until to-night did I hear him ever suggest that there would be any practical difficulties in the collection of this tax. Certainly such evidence as I have read, and which was given before the Royal Commission, as far as I can remember, went to show that it is a tax that will be easily collected. I think it is also a tax which will be wholesome in its effect. I know it is suggested that it will increase betting, but I think the experience of taxation of this kind, and the evidence of those who are in a position to give valuable evidence on this point, is that the effect of this tax will be wholesome. So that for that reason, which is the one which has been pressed upon this House and upon this Committee by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the one and sufficient reason for the tax from his point of view,. namely, that it is a good tax, it is on that ground that I feel I can heartily support it.
There is a second reason, and one which in my opinion is of no less importance. But before touching upon that perhaps the House will allow me one moment or two to refer to the grounds of objection that have been taken to the tax. They are grounds that are doubtless by now familiar to every hon. Member because of the propaganda and because of the Debates which have taken place on this subject in this House. Broadly, they are these: This tax is said to be a departure from a policy that has been long pursued in this country with regard to betting, and a change in the attitude of the State towards betting. It is suggested—I think it was suggested in the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) when this Bill was going through Committee stage—that it was a departure from a principle which had governed the
policy of this country for so long, and it would be disastrous to depart from it now. I confess I have studied that speech very carefully, and I have not been able to find what fundamental change there is in this tax. I suppose it is that hitherto the attitude of the State towards betting has rather been to frown teem it, so that among the members of the community recognising the attitude of the State, the impulse or the wish to bet was withered and wilted. The suggestion is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes now to change the frown into a smile, and that the attitude which has hitherto tended to discourage it will now tend to encourage it unduly.
The second argument against the duty is that we are proposing to handle tainted money. I have not heard that argument used, but I have received a pamphlet and other hon. Members have doubtless received it, called "Tainted Money," and on the back of it appear the words,
Keep clean the country's coffers.
I suppose there is nothing in this world that has not a taint of some kind, or at least the taint of corruption. If the State is to consider the sources from which its revenue is to come, it will embark upon a task that would be very difficult indeed. If money is illgotten, or criminally gotten, then it is for the law to deal with it, but when it is money that is legally gotten, then to me at any rate it seems a subject which is rightly taxable by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The last ground of objection is this, and it leads me back to the second main reason for my support of this Clause, and it is what the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer said was the moral question. I think it was quite unnecessary that the moral question should ever have been raised at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] For this reason, that I do not think there is a moral issue in the tax that is proposed. I know the Chancellor of the Exchequer has himself deplored that the issue should have been so confused by the raising of this moral question, because there is one peculiarity among the people of this country, that while it is difficult to interest them in many questions of national importance, immediately you suggest that it is a moral issue their interest is immediately
aroused. There is this peculiarity about it, that while they elect to decide for themselves any other question, they somehow leave the moral question to be decided by an authority to whom they look.
9.0 P.M
I venture to suggest that much of the opposition to this tax in the country is not found so much among the people, but is what I might describe as an official opposition. If there is one thing that has been made quite clear in this Debate, it is this, that, while it is quite true that this tax has been proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer mainly for revenue purposes, there are many people throughout the country who will support it, not only because it is a good tax, but because it is likely to have a wholesome effect and to give some opportunity of controlling an evil which has attained such appalling dimensions in the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking during the Committee stage of the Bill, referred to the decision of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. The consideration of this tax by that Assembly was not from the revenue point of view, but from the point of view of its moral effect upon the people of the country. Hon. Gentlemen who have read the Report will have been struck, as I certainly was, by the evidence of two of the witnesses before the Committee. Both of those witnesses were men whose interest in the matter is not purely and simply academic, for both of them have been identified for some 20 or 25 years with the movement to cope with the betting evil in the country. I refer to Dr. Lyttelton, the late headmaster of Eton, and to Bishop Welldon. These are men who are supporting this tax, and who approve of it, not because of its value as a means of raising revenue, but because they honestly believe, as I believe and as many throughout the country believe, that it is only by taxation, which at least offers some form of control, that you are going to cope with the evil of betting, which is admittedly so great at the present moment. I want to say in passing that, while it is true that it was the financial difficulties of the country that gave rise to the consideration of this tax at first, a great good has certainly been done in this respect, that the report
of that inquiry has thrown a light upon this evil, and has informed and instructed the country as to its dimensions. In that way I think it has done a great good. For these two main reasons—that the tax is a good one which will raise much-needed revenue, and that it is a tax which I think will have a wholesome effect upon the present state of things, and will bring into some measure of control, at any rate, an evil that seems so long to have gone rampant and uncontrolled—I support it heartily.

Mr. BARR: Our lion Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Russell) began by stating very clearly and fully the large amount of opposition that there was in his constituency. He explained later that people were very apt to take up a moral issue and run after it. I put these two things together, and I thought that it was because of the moral issues that so many of his constituents were addressing themselves to the subject, and were opposing this tax. I desire this evening to give some indication of the strength of the opposition. I instance, first of all, the National Council of the Evangelical Free Churches of England, who issued manifestoes on this subject to all their federations, councils and branches, to the number of 750. Nearly all of those have passed resolutions against this tax. Every denomination of Nonconformists, at their annual synods, assemblies and conferences, has passed, so far, a resolution against this tax. It is striking that the Churches of Christ, in every one of their congregations, have fostered a resolution or petition against this tax.
Nor is this confined to Nonconformist bodies. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, during the Committee stage, gave us the figures at the London Diocesan Conference, where, I think, 119 declared against the tax and 58 for it. That is in itself significant. The hon. Member for Tynemouth spoke about the Church of Scotland and its decision on the matter. It is fair to say that, so far as I know, every other Church in Scotland has taken up exactly the opposite position. I should not be accounted an unbiased spectator of these events, and I have, perhaps, a certain prejudice, but it sometimes occurs to me that those Churches that stand so much for national
religion do not always figure so well as some others on the subject of national righteousness. I wish to say this, that in the Church of Scotland itself, they did not resolve to petition in favour of this tax, although they refused to petition against it, and there was some very wholesome speaking on the subject by those who turned out to be the minority. I hope to have the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself when I read to him a sentence or two from the speech of Dr. David Watson, a man of large outlook and generous and broad sympathies, though by no means a member of the Labour party. Speaking of this tax, he said:
They were not going to alter their views and reverse their attitude at the bidding of a Chancellor whose judgment had never been his strong point. He had thrown a glamour over many and had misled them. He had alienated many supporters of the Government. Was the Church to approve of the creation of that new vast vested interest which would block all reform?
Moreover, I examined the petitions that came from Scotland on the subject, 295 in number. Although it was put forward by Dr. Norman Maclean, in supporting the tax in the Church of Scotland Assembly, that it was the beginning of a process for delivering the nation from a great evil, will it be believed that among these 295 petitions presented to the House from Scotland, there is not a single one in favour of the tax? Every one of them opposed it. That, I think, is very striking.
What are the grounds on which the Churches take exception to this tax? First of all they hold that in the issue of certificates of registration for bookmakers, and for their premises, you are building up a powerful vested interest which will in the end be a political and a social menace in the days to come, and a formidable barrier to reform. I am quoting from the petitions which I have examined. When the vested interest in the liquor trade was established in 1904 the great argument used was that these men were licensed, that the licences, although they held them only for a year, yet by custom had been continued year by year, and that therefore they had come to constitute property. Mr. Balfour, now Earl Balfour, said they had everything that related to property except security of tenure. It was argued that
they were rated and taxed, and therefore their property must be conserved, and they had formed a vested interest. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not take it amiss if I quote from Lord Randolph Churchill, in this house in 1890, using this very argument:
It has been admitted on both sides of the House that the custom of renewing licences has become so prevalent and so strong that the licences so issued have become property, and I think that in the discussion of this question the arguments in favour of compensation for vested interests have predominated.
Among the churches, as among us, there is this well-founded fear that by certifying the bookmaker you will find it much more difficult to remove him without compensation in the days to come. You are building up a new vested interest. Further, they argue, and we argue, that you are making a radical change in the principles of British law. Ever since 1853 the transaction of betting has, at the most, been tolerated by law. It was only by a legal fiction in 1899 that the decision was come to that allowed betting on the race course. Now, under the arrangements of the right hon. Gentleman, there it a new security given to betting on the race course. It is no longer a legal loophole but something that is fully sanctioned by the State. In the next place, you give a new security to credit betting. That also has only been in an irregular way countenanced by the law. You have this notable fact, that on 12th March, 1924, Lord Darling, in opposing a betting tax, said he was quite prepared to argue that even yet there was not legal foundation for betting by telegraph and telephone. I think we see here one of the new ramifications of this evil. I notice in my own City of Glasgow and in other towns that telephone boxes have been put up at the corners of our public streets, and, doubtless, these will be used, with the countenance of the State, to increase revenue and to further this betting evil.
There is one other respect in which I believe it is bound to influence the law. Lord Darling argued that because it had been accounted a vice therefore the law declared that betting debts would not be recoverable. I take the case of the bookmaker who engages in credit betting. He has paid the betting tax on his stake and
the stake is never recovered. Will he not have an unanswerable argument for legislation to allow him to recover the bet on which he has paid the tax? The Select Committee of the House of Lords on the licensing of Bookmakers in 1902 said it would mean the legal recognition of the bookmaker and would necessitate making betting debts recoverable by law. Further they argue, as we do, that it does nothing to remove the evils of street betting but will increase them. Many of these bookmakers on the streets will fortify themselves by taking out a licence for credit betting and will use that as a token of respectability when they are brought into Court. It has been pointed out by Members on all sides, and not least those on the Government side, that the only logical conclusion of this is that you upset the whole attitude of the law towards street betting and must proceed to certify and license street betting as the logical outcome. The bon. Member for Tynemouth said the tax would have a wholesome effect. He argued that it would diminish the volume of betting and it was only by taxation that you could hope to cope with this evil. I wonder how they have coped with it in New Zealand since the Betting Tax was imposed there. It was argued, when they brought in the totalisator, that it would eliminate the bookmaker and would decrease the amount of betting. As a matter of fact it has increased fivefold in the 12 years since that was done and it has stultified the. Government in their efforts to put down betting in various forms. In New South Wales they introduced a tax on betting in 1916, The revenue the following year was £27,366, the year after it was: £40,849, and in 1924, £108,688. The Chancellor himself has confessed that it is not an instrument for the repression of betting. These were his words when speaking of Continental countries which had resorted to a Betting Tax:
I have noticed that this is done without in the least degree deterring an ever-increasing number of persons from pursuing their illusions and paying for them.
It is widening the distinction between the rich and the poor in this matter. It is accentuating the present differentiation. We have sanction added to the credit bookmaker, but we are still to pursue the street bookmaker with penalties. A good deal was made the other day on these
benches as to the 131 persons who were caught in a gambing den and brought before the Western Police Court in Glasgow. Some were out of employment, and it was made an additional part of the offence that they were on the dole. After all, I cannot see the difference between these men meeting in what you call a gambling den and meeting at Ascot or Newmarket. I cannot find it out. You tell me they were unemployed, but ninny of the people who frequent Ascot and Newmarket were never in work, and they are on the dole all the time and not only for a few weeks. I find in all these documents and petitions which have been presented by the Church, that the view they hold is that the habit of betting will be encouraged rather than repressed, and that it is a habit which undermines character and deteriorates the moral standards of the nation. The hon. Member for Tyne-mouth made a merit of the fact that the tax was easy collected and was productive. That has no relation at all to the question of whether this is a tax which on moral grounds should be encouraged and supported. He said the fact that it was legally gotten was a sufficient ground for drawing in the revenue. It may be legally valid, but morally wrong.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Committee stage said he respected adherence to the highest moral standards, and had a proper regard for them. I am sure of that, and I accept what he said on that point. I believe that he is looking at this matter only from the point of view of revenue, but I do say that this Government has not only completely alienated by their industrial policy great masses of the working people of this country, but that they have alienated the Christian churches and those who stand for the highest and best moral opinion in the country. I would not stand always for what is called the Nonconformist conscience. I am a Nonconformist, and I stand for conscience and for the assertion of moral issues, but I sometimes wish that the churches would apply their conscience to a broader field and to the whole industrial system.
We have something broader here than the Nonconformist conscience, and I am confident that the Government will, ere long, feel the force of it. I say to the Government, that if they would pay re-
gard to these great moral issues, and instead of a tax on betting they would introduce taxes which would develop the material resources of this country—there are plenty such taxes that could be imposed—they would find that in the end the country would be infinitely stronger and richer, and they would find revenue in far larger harvest. They would find what the Judges in the National Supreme Court of the United States of America found in dealing with the liquor trade, when they said that if the United States in the advance of temperance suffered loss of revenue they would be the gainer—as Great Britain would be in regard to this matter—a thousandfold in the health, wealth and happiness of their people.

Sir LEONARD BRASSEY: When this Clause was discussed in the Committee stage I voted against it. I had then, and still have, very grave objections to the proposals contained in it, although I have not a complete objection to any taxation on betting, I do not propose to say now what I might have said on the former occasion, because one of my great objections to the proposal originally was that the 5 per cent. which it was proposed to put upon betting, taking into consideration the conditions in this country as compared with any other civilised country where horse racing is conducted on any large scale, was too high a tax to impose upon those who indulge in betting here. I only rise now to say as one who in years gone by had a good deal to do with the conduct of horse racing in this country, that the whole of the horse racing community will cordially and heartily appreciate the way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has met them. Speaking for myself and on behalf of the horse racing community, I say that we are all very grateful to him for the way he has treated us.

Mr. MORRIS: I have no doubt that the horse racing community of this country are very grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has met them, but he has declined to meet the petitioners to whom the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Russell) referred. Like the hon. Member for Tynemouth, I have had a very considerable number of petitions sent to me from all over my division, and those petitions are, without exception, pro-
tests against the imposition of this duty. The hon. Member for Tynemouth gave several reasons why he supports the duty. His first reason was that it was a good duty, and he added that betting in his view was an unmitigated evil, so great an evil, that so far as he was concerned he intended to evade the duty altogether. If everyone took his view—a very practical view in regard to the duty—the Chancellor of the Exchequer would get no revenue at all. The hon. Member said the tax would be useful, because so great did he regard the evil that a duty such as this would have the effect of reducing it. He welcomed it from that point of view.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer took exactly the opposite point of view, a point of view confirmed by the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) when he gave the example of Australia. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that if he proposed a duty of 5 per cent., not only would he get revenue of £6,000,000 but revenue of £10,000,000 or .£12,000,000, and he would not know exactly what to do with it. He said, further, that he did not want all this revenue and, therefore, he would reduce the duty. That is the very opposite to the argument of the hon. Member for Tynemouth, whose own argument negates his own purpose. He would have preferred that the duty should have remained at 5 per cent. Is he going to vote for the reduction which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes? I do not know whether the hon. Member who has just spoken will be in the same Lobby as the hon. Member for Tynemouth; if so, they will be voting for the duty for exactly opposite reasons. One hon. Member would support the Chancellor of the Exchequer because he has reduced the duty, and he thinks that will help the racing community, while the hon. Member for Tynemouth will go into the Lobby to vote for it because he thinks it will do something to damage the racing community and to put down the evil to which he objects. One way of dealing with this revenue is not to countenance it at all. That was the opinion of the Departmental Committee which investigated all the evidence, including the evidence of the Churches upon the moral aspect. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer corn mended the duty to the House he
attached some importance to the moral side. He did not despise the moral side.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Hear, hear!

Mr. MORRIS: He said he was not going to be drawn into the moral issue, and that all that he was concerned with was obtaining revenue. I cannot understand why if he is primarily concerned with obtaining revenue he has not kept the duty at 5 per cent. Why does he reduce it? Is it merely to meet the views of the racing community? Is it because they have such weight with the Treasury that they have to be obliged? The churches of the country gave their evidence before the Departmental Committee, and stated their reasons cogently. It is all very well to say, as did the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he is not doing anything to alter the law in regard to betting but it will be inevitable in the course of very few years that the law will have to be changed. You are recognising what the Chancellor's own supporters regard as an evil. You are doing something to entrench that evil in this country. There was evidence before the Committee which clearly showed that in the opinion of a good many witnesses it was a greater evil than the drink evil. Testimony was given that money sorely needed to reestablish industry was taken from productive purposes and used to a large extent for this unproductive purpose. Yet the Chancellor disregards the whole of the moral weight, and the whole of the petition. Even if the Chancellor gets £6,000,000 and thereby eases the Revenue to that extent, it will he money dearly bought from a moral point of view. That is the view of the great bulk of the Churches. These people are concerned as to the opinion of the social workers. They meet the conditions at first hand. They are quite as much experts on that side of the question as the Chancellor's advisors are on the financial aspect. The moral aspect of any question is the most important. This country wants reestablishment of the moral sense, industrially and otherwise. You do nothing to assist or develop the growth of that sense when you impose a duty of this kind which affects a change which should never be affected in this country.

Mr. RAINE: I am whole heartedly in favour of this tax. I have listened to all
the speeches and I have heard nothing to cause me to alter my opinion. If this tax is imposed, it will put an end to the false position in which this country has been for years with regard to betting. I believe it will be the beginning of the end of the tout who preys on the working classes in a way very few people who know the industrial areas realise. If this matter be weighed up, the moral issue is rather on the side of putting on the tax. The great amount of betting that goes on is known to everybody. In reply to the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr), I would ask why should people who make bets not pay honourably if they lose I They are ready enough to collect when they win. I would like to see the whole betting arrangements of this country entirely re-modelled so as to ensure that if people lost they should pay their losses in the same way as an ordinary business debt. I have received a mass of correspondence from various Churches in my constituency. I have replied to everyone with a reasoned argument in favour of the tax. During the 25 years I have been in public life I have made it a rule never to sidetrack any question; whether I was for or against, I spoke out honestly, regardless of the consequences. From various individuals in my constituency I have received far more commendation than I have received kicks. I should like to criticise the Amendment which the Chancellor has put down, namely, to make the tax on field betting 2 per cent. and on credit betting 3i per cent. With regard to credit betting at 3½ per cent., as that is done in large amounts the argument which I am going to put forward is not so strong as it is in connection with the 2 per cent.
I cannot imagine why the Chancellor chose 2 per cent. I should have thought he would have taken 2½ per cent., because 2½ per cent. on a sovereign is 6d., on 10s. 3d., and on 5s. 1½d.; whereas the way it is going to work out is that on the 10s. bet—I am not a betting man myself, but from inquiries I have made, 10s. seems to he the favourite amount to put on—the tax undoubtedly that will be charged by the bookmaker will be 3d. It will be very interesting to hear the explanation the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to give. I can only imagine that the bookmaker, before the race meeting comes off, is going to buy £10 or £20 worth of stamps
and be able to put a 3d. stamp on a 10s. card. I think it will be found that the Revenue will lose a great deal which might come to it. If it is not too late for the Chancellor to adopt the 2½ per cent. on field betting, I think the revenue would benefit to a great extent. I hope the Chancellor will take that into consideration. There is nothing that annoys the public so much as to realise that if they are having to pay a tax all of it does not go to the proper source. I hope the Chancellor will take this question into very careful consideration if it is not too late. He, of all people, must realise in the present state of affairs, bow necessary revenue is. There is no reason for losing part of it in. the way I am afraid he will do if he carries out his present intention. I am heartily in favour of the tax. I will not utter any prophecy as to whether the tax is likely to reduce betting or not. It may prevent some people from betting surreptitiously, as they do now. I regard betting as a luxury, and in the present state of the country's finances there is a very good opportunity to collect a considerable amount of revenue at little expense for the good of the country.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I have not had petitions from my constituents, but I have had quite a number of letters, and I find that these letters are pretty equally divided between those who oppose the tax upon what is called the moral issue, and those who oppose the tax because it is an interference with the betting community. It seems to me that if I vote in favour of this Amendment, I shall be upon the right side from both points of view. A reflection that occurs to me with regard to most of the Debates we have had upon the subject is that betting is a luxury which is enjoyed or followed by probably the vast majority of the people of this country It is not only a question of betting upon horses. Other forms of gambling are very popular. You have only to take up your weekly newspapers arid you will find that their millions of circulation depend more than anything else upon the spirit of gambling among the people. In view of that fact, it seems to me that the talk in opposition to this tax from the moral point of view is a kind of Parliamentary Puritanism which is beside the mark. I must confess I have very strong prejudice
against Puritanism of any kind except the Puritanism of individuals.
Puritanism may be a fine thing for the individual, but when it is projected into the law, when it is a case of pushing one's principles down other people's throats, it has a tendency to become very objectionable, and sometimes not only to become objectionable, but to defeat the very purpose it is supposed to support. I am not going to vote in favour of the Betting Duty for quite other reasons. I was interested in listening, to the speech of the hon. Member below the Gangway about productive as against unproductive expenditure. There is a point in that argument of recognising the economic facts of the case. But it is not a question of productive or unproductive expenditure. If I take money from one pocket and put it into another you would not base an argument on it that it was productive or unproductive expenditure. When two rich men make a bet, men who perhaps have obtained their riches from bad sources, the mere fact that one wins and the other loses makes not the slightest difference to the production of the country. It is merely equivalent to taking money from one pocket and putting it into another.
I fail to see the fundamental objection from the moral point of view to betting. It is not a moral question at all; it is a social question. Betting is harmful because the people who are encouraged to engage in it to extremes, because of the lack of rational interest and reasonable excitement in their lives, cannot afford to bet. That is an argument against poverty, but it is not an argument against betting on principle. I do not see why an individual transaction involving a risk of loss should be more immoral than a church bazaar or playing a game of cards in my own private house. Everybody gambles in one way or another. Life, especially under modern competitive conditions, is bound up with the principle of gambling, and I find my own friends who are Socialists using the argument against my particular point of view, which is not very popular on this side, that as a Socialist I should object upon moral grounds to the principle of taking something for nothing. I do not object to the principle of taking something for nothing, if it is a voluntary transaction and if there is an equal chance for both sides, one
winning at the expense of another and there is nothing of compulsion.
What I object to so much is not getting something for nothing, but to the imposition of a condition of society and circumstances upon me, or upon any member of the class that lives by its labour, which allows other people to get something for nothing at the expense of my labour without any voluntary transaction about it. That is what I object to, but I fail to see what there is of a moral character involved in the principle of betting. I object to the Betting Duty in the first place, as the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) has said, that it is creating a new vested interest and, secondly, because I object to all kinds of indirect taxation. For these two reasons I am going into the Lobby in support of the Amendment. I want to urge hon. Members not to imagine that every member of the Labour party is necessarily governed by Free Church or Wee Church policy. Some of us have our own point of view which is not determined by the Nonconformist conscience. I have every respect for the Nonconformist conscience, but morality to me is an individual question; when it is not individual it is worth nothing. I believe every church council and every body of social workers have a perfect right to their own line of propaganda, but when it comes to imposing their point of view on the rest of the community on moral questions, as in the case of prohibition, my anti-puritanism comes uppermost and I object most strongly.
I do not think you are ever going to achieve morality by Acts of Parliament You can improve social conditions, look after the bodies of the people; their souls will look after themselves. I do not think it is desirable to give the Government cachet to betting if it is going to help the extension of betting amongst people who cannot afford to bet on the ground that the money the working classes spend in betting is money which ought to be spent productively. I do not think everything should be judged from the standpoint of whether it is productive or not. I think the working people ought to have some surplus which they can throw away on their own pleasures; I want my class to have some surplus to throw away on their own pleasures. There is one other point of view which occurs
to me. The question of prostitution has been used as an analogy between one particular form of vice and the vice, as it is called, of betting; and it is a vice in a social sense because of its effects under the circumstances of life as we live it. But you can never by Acts of Parliament stop prostitution. You can imprison brothel keepers, but that is not stopping prostitution. You can stop, and wisely stop, the creation and existence of gaming houses, but that does not stop gambling. You will not stop gambling by passing Acts of Parliament making it unlawful for anybody to make a bet on a horse. If people cannot bet that way they will bet, and are going to bet, in some other way.
The best thing to do if you want to raise the moral tone and standard of the people is to see that they have a rational sort of life, a decent education and a chance to look upon life in a, well-balanced way. That is the best way to deal with all the moral issues, and there is no reason why Parliament should assist the development of betting, or any kind of social evil which may be disadvantageous to any class of the community. There is far too much unction about this question of morality. It is an individual question; it is not the business of Parliament. We have no right to interfere at all with self-regarded acts until they become a public nuisance, and until they become a public nuisance I am not prepared to vote for Acts of Parliament which interfere with the habits of the people.

Sir FRANK MEYER: There has been a. robust reality about the remarks of the last speaker which' to me has been in welcome contrast with some of the other speeches we have heard on this occasion, and also during the Committee stage of this Bill. At the risk of calling upon myself the censure of the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) and the hon. Member below the Gangway, I am going to confess that I am, and always have been, one who takes a pleasure in an occasional bet. I am one, according to the evidence given before the Select Committee, of 3,000,000, and, therefore, I am in considerably good company, and when I say, as the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that my first bet was made at a very early age—I think I beat him by some years, for I believe mine was made at the
age of 12—and ever since then I have taken an interest in the sport of horse racing, at any rate, I may be said to be slightly familiar on practical grounds with the subject. I do not think it has ever been very profitable to me. Indeed, I might say, to paraphrase the well-known verse,
Myself, when young, did eagerly frequent Tipster and tout, and heard great argument
About it and about, but evermore came out
A poorer man than in I went.
In spite of the knowledge that in the long run it is always the bookmaker who wins, that has not deterred me, or any of the other 3,000,000 apparently, from supporting their own opinion in a sporting way.
There seems to me to be three principal lines of argument in opposition to this tax. We have been told that this tax will increase betting, but it is the first time that I ever heard the economic doctrine advanced that to make a thing more expensive is likely to increase its consumption, and I leave it to those who advance that argument to prove, if they can, how increasing the cost can tend to increase the consumption. I would like to refer to what the hon. Member for Motherwell said, that the tax on what is known as legal betting will drive street bookmakers to take out licences in order to give themselves a respectability which at present they have not got. I would point out that, once they do that, they identify themselves in the eyes of the police, they have a place which the police can inspect at any time, without notice and without warning, and it will make it very difficult for them to carry on the illegal transactions of street betting, which at present they can only practice by means of secrecy and by employing a great many spies and scouts. Therefore, I do not think it is likely that a street bookmaker who wants to carry on an illegal business will take out a licence and brand himself as one open to be inspected by the police.
We are told that for the first time under this tax the State recognises betting. What a peculiar use of the word "recognise." Here is something which is going on all around us by millions of people every day, and to say that we do not recognise it at the present time is to adopt a mental attitude which we are
wont to associate physically with the ostrich. How can we pretend we do not recognise a thing on which we take Income Tax and which everybody on all sides is doing all the time? It is an abuse of the word "recognition" to say that merely by taxing a thing you are recognising it. It seems to me that those who are opposed to this tax have only one logical attitude which they can take up, and that is that they should state clearly and definitely that they will do all in their power to stop betting by legislation. If they think this betting is so unclean a thing that you must not touch it, even with the hungry hand of a revenue official, they should be logical in their attitude and should say: "We will do all we can to stop betting. We will not be content that street betting should be illegal, but we will make all that is now legal betting illegal." I challenge those Members of the Labour party and of other parties who are going into the Lobby to vote against this tax on moral grounds to put into their Election programmes at the next Election, that they are opposed to betting and that they think it should be made illegal, just as street betting is illegal at the present time.
In regard to what the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) said on the last occasion, that to tax betting was as great an evil as to tax prostitution, I challenge him to go to his own constituents, among whom, I am sure, there are many thousands who practise this evil of betting, and tell them that whenever they are making a bet they are doing something which is in any sense comparable to prostitution.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: The hon. Gentleman must not misrepresent me. I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to argue that he was not con-termed with a moral issue at all, but merely with revenue. I said that if that was his point of view, what objection was there to making a tax upon other forms of vice?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I said that, as I was not altering the law with regard to street betting, or making anything legal which was now illegal, the moral issue was not raised, but only the revenue issue.

Sir F. MEYER: I am prepared to leave the matter to the judgment of the House
and those who heard the hon. Member's words. I do not wish to misrepresent him. I took the trouble to read through his speech again to-day, and I have here a selection from it on which I founded my argument. He made the comparison, with whatever object he made it. There are only one or two Members here who are logical in this moral attitude towards betting. I believe the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) would be prepared to go to his electors and forbid betting altogether; I believe the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor), who, I am sorry to see, is not in her place to-night, would be prepared to do so on somewhat similar grounds; and perhaps also the hon. Member for Motherwell would, but they must go further. It is no good merely making betting illegal, because street betting is illegal now, yet it goes on among millions every day. That shows that the law is incapable of preventing betting in cash, which is a much more easy thing to prevent than to prevent betting over the telephone in a couple of words. Therefore, you must do away with those sports which lead to betting. You must abolish racing, you must abolish whippet racing, and you must abolish even foot ball. That is the only way logically in which you can do away with betting altogether. I do not see how any hon. Member can get out of that position.
I do not like to speak about the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) in her absence, but she has a definite attitude on this question which I am bound to criticise. She wants to suppress betting. She suffers, as some of her compatriots do, from what I might call a social uplift complex, and sometimes she is so confused in her desire to reform all the people in this country that she omits to see the beam in her own eye while searching for the mote in other people's eyes. Her attitude is very peculiar. She would admit, I am sure, if she were here—she did, on the last occasion—that she is very devoted to the sport of racing, in which I know her husband takes an active part, and she would not do anything to discourage it. In fact, the letter he wrote to the "Times" was an argument in favour of racing, but against betting. How can she take up that attitude, when it is quite
clear that, if you do not have betting—nobody can deny this—the greater part of the people who go to the races would no longer go? If they did not go, the race companies and so on would not be able to give prizes, and if there were no prizes, how could people, except the Noble Lord her husband and half-a-dozen others, afford to own racehorses? The whole logic of the position is given away by these opponents of betting, unless they are prepared also to suppress racing and all other forms of sport on which betting takes place.
Although I am strongly in favour of a, tax on betting, and I consider that the moral argument that has been advanced cannot for one moment be logically supported, I am bound to say that I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman has gone the right way about collecting the £6,000,000 which he hopes to get. I desire to see him get his £6,000,000; I should be content if he were to get £8,000,000 or £10,000,000, but I think he is going the wrong way about it. I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to think that I am blaming him, because I know that this is an extraordinarily difficult subject. It is quite obvious that previously to the bringing in of the Budget it was not possible for him to make the inquiries into this highly-technical business which were necessary to formulate the tax in the right way in order to get the money. He has made several concessions as the result, I imagine, of consultation with those who are interested in what I call a great sport and others call a vice. The success of this tax depends on getting the goodwill of those concerned. There has never been a tax which would be so easy to evade. If it be impossible to stop street betting, although it implies the actual physical passing of a coin from one man's hand to another, how much harder is it to suppress betting which is merely the result of a word spoken across the rails or spoken on the telephone?

Mr. CHURCHILL: indicated dissent.

Sir F. MEYER: I will give the right hon. Gentleman an example of how, if I so desired, I could evade his tax, and I challenge him to tell me how he will prevent that form of evasion. I have no intention of evading the tax The only way in which I might evade it would be by reducing the number of bets—they are
comparatively few at present—which I have. Assuming that I made a habit, which I do not, of betting in multiples of £10—there are many who frequent the racecourse who do so—and that my stake varies from £10 to £100. All I have to do is to tell my bookmaker that in future I shall bet in £1 multiples, but there is to be this understanding between him and myself, that when I say £1 it means £10, and when I say £10 it means £100, and so on. That is to be the arrangement between us. If I am found out I go to gaol, but how is the right hon. Gentleman to find me out? The accounts will be rendered at the end of each week showing multiples of £1 instead of multiples of £10. At the end of each week, month, or season, there will be a bigger instalment to pay one way or another, but that can be disposed of by entering on the hooks or the vouchers one single bet to make up the amount of that difference. In that way you have taken away from the revenue one-tenth of the tax. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer can tell me how he will discover a fraud of that kind I. shall be very much obliged.
10.0 P.M.
I only say that to show how absolutely necessary it is, if he wants to collect this tax, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have the goodwill of the bookmakers and the backers as a whole. He can get that goodwill if he makes the tax of a size and of an amount which they think is tolerable and which can be imposed without seriously diminishing betting as a whole. The right hon. Gentleman has reduced the tax from 5 per cent. to 2½ per cent. on the course and 3½ per cent. in the office. I am going to vote for that concession but I still think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a mistake. I think that the tax ought to be 1 per cent. all round. That seems an extraordinary reduction from the original 5 per cent. but I believe that the whole of the figures of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to turnover were based upon the evidence given and the Report presented by the Select Committee. It is extremely difficult to know what is the turnover on betting and nobody will ever know exactly what it is, but I have been privileged to see—and I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer has also seen—the books of one of the largest betting firms in this country and the turnover of that firm now is about
£5,000,000 per annum at present. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is basing his 2 per cent. and his 3½ per cent. tax on a turnover of about £300,000,000, which will be reduced by the tax to £225,000,000. If those figures are correct and if one firm has a turnover of £5,000,000 it means that this single firm is doing one-sixtieth of the total betting in this country. Now there are 5,000, perhaps 10,000 bookmakers in this country. How can it be said that this firm is doing one-sixtieth of the total turnover? What must the turnover be of those bookmakers who spend not hundreds, not thousands, but tens of thousands of pounds in advertising? I tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is my firm conviction that the turnover of betting in this country is more like £500,000,000 and perhaps larger. If lie will make this tax one per cent. all round he will get his £6,000,000 with no loss of the good will of the bookmakers and backers.
I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has also made a mistake in differentiating between course betting and office betting. It sounds a very good thing that a man who goes to a course and who takes an actual part in racing should get off more cheaply than a man who sits at home, but it is not so simple as all that. A very large percentage of those who go to the course do not bet across the rails with the bookmakers, but they send telegrams to their bookmaker in town. They do not like all the fighting and hustling that takes place in the ring, and they prefer to go to the telegraph office and to send their wires. Others go to the course and do not send telegrams or telephone. They have only to pay 2 per cent. tax, but the others, by sending a telegram have to pay 3½ per cent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that the only way the tax can be collected by the bookmakers through their clients is by shortening the odds. He admits that any other way may cause irritation and that that will reduce betting and that the tax thereby will be seriously affected. But who is it who makes the starting price? It is the course bookmaker, and he has only to pay 2 per cent. He will take that 2 per cent. into account when lie fixes the starting price, and the man in London will have that price fixed by
the bookmaker who has to pay 2 per cent., while he himself has to pay 3½ per cent.
Where is that 1½ per cent. to come from? Is it to come from the bookmakers? We know that the bookmaker will collect it from his client in the irritating way that the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated when he said that the only way to collect the tax was to pass it on by shortening the odds. I only want, in conclusion, to emphasise again what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington (Mr. Montague) said so clearly and so effectively, that it is not the least good thinking you can make people good in this country by moral legislation. Whatever the Member for Dundee may say, and I give him the greatest credit for his courage and sincerity—and I give the Noble Lady credit also—you will not stop people from gambling by any forth of legislation. You are not going to encourage them to gamble more by putting a tax on them. The constant repetition of the words "vested interests," which is a favourite expression, is used in a false connection. How do you give a man a vested interest if you give him a licence when he applies for it? The publican must prove his good conduct before he gets a licence, but a bookmaker who takes out a licence just as a man does who drives a motor car, does not get a vested interest. It is ridiculous to say that a man for £10 a. year, whose conduct is not investigated and who has to submit no references, gets a vested interest.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I rise to raise one or two points in connection to this Betting Duty. The hon. Member who spoke last stated as a very cogent argument that a man could very easily come to an arrangement with his bookmaker about £1 meaning £10 and so on; but that can only be when there is perfect trust between the bookmaker and the man who bets. It means in effect that if he won or lost, then at law all the claim he had would be for the pound. If he went to law the Court would order the bookmaker to pay the smaller amount. The consequence is that everybody is going to bet on £10 and £20 and take good care that they are within the law. I do not think the argument counts much as far as that is con-
cerned. I also oppose this differentiation for other reasons. I agree with a good deal of what the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) has said about betting. On this point it is no use of the last speaker saying that there is no vested interest. There is a vested interest.
Anyone who knows the drink traffic knows that every time the drink trade want a reduction of taxation, they come to Parliament and, heedless of every other social 'question, press for a reduction. The same will happen in the case of betting. The bookmaker will come and plead and try to get a reduction. But there is this other point regarding the differentiation. It is all very well to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will differentiate in the way suggested. I do not think he can do that logically. You are not only dealing with betting and racing; you are dealing with betting and other forms of sport, if sport it can be called. Take whippet racing. In Scotland there are large numbers of people who go regularly every Saturday of their life to see this form of racing. The person who attends horse racing has to pay only 2 per cent., but if the bookmaker goes to a whippet race meeting, which is frequented largely by working men, he has to pay 3½ per cent., as against 2 per cent. in the wealthier place. If a man makes a book on a whippet ground, he has to pay the larger amount. There is no question that they are poorer people who attend the whippet meetings, and I object to something that penalises poorer people as against the rich people.
There is not only the objection in regard to whippet racing. In my part of the country there is trotting or pony racing, and I am going to ask if under the Amendment moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer a pony race is a horse race? There are grounds where whippet racing and trotting are carried on in combination and there is also foot running. In Edinburgh there is a place called Powderhall where whippet racing and foot racing are carried on, and there are some places where the three forms of sport are carried on. A bookmaker on a race course will only charge his client 2 per cent., but if a pony is considered a horse, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer will charge 2 per cent. for a bet on a pony. If there happens to be a
whippet running he will have to alter his basis of taxation and charge the full 3½ per cent. One of the reasons for differentiating is that the bookmaker who goes to the race course has a great deal more expenditure than the other bookmaker who sits in an office. But trotting and whippet racing are equally expensive. I am raising this question because I have been asked by certain people who are constituents of mine to do so. They want to be dealt with equitably. There ought to be no difference.
I myself think there is a tremendously strong case—almost an unanswerable case—for legalising betting in this country. The law of betting has ceased to be a law and has become a farce. When law is treated as a farce, it ceases to be law. Whether we on these benches like it or not, the great mass of people do not look upon a man as a bad person for having been fined for betting. In my constituency he is looked upon as the, reverse and as some one to be proud of. A person fined for a bet is not looked upon the same as a person fined for being drunk or for committing a theft.
If the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to stop street betting there is an effective way to do it. A Bill is at present going through Parliament, the object of which is to cut out newspaper reports of divorce cases. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to deal with street gambling, he has only to cut the publication of betting odds in the newspapers. I will give him an illustration. I have a friend—a constituent of mine—who runs not only a credit betting business but a street betting business. Incidentally, when he gets his licence, it will give him an additional status for street betting, and he is proud of it. In the ordinary course this man takes about 1,000 bets each day. During the general strike, when the newspapers were not being printed, the number of bets went down to about 40 each day. That was because there were no newspapers no betting odds, and no tips. [HON.MEMBERS: "And no racing!"] Oh, yes. I know something about it, and I would remind hon. Members that we had Chester races for three days during that period. I have never made a bet off a racecourse though I have made one or two on racecourses, but I like to go to racecourses and to see horse racing. I
do not know that there is any crime in it; if there is, I shall probably suffer the punishment hereafter. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Churches are sincere in wanting to stop betting they should start a campaign to abolish the publication of betting odds in the newspapers.
I am with the hon. Member for West Islington, who is against all indirect taxation. I have, for instance, what some Members would regard as a peculiar "complex" on the drink question. I voted with the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) in favour of the total prohibition of liquor, and some time later I voted for a reduction of the taxes on liquor, because I believe sincerely that if the liquor traffic is bad it ought to be suppressed in a straightforward way, and we ought to take a referendum of the people upon it. I do not believe in taxing an evil and raising revenue from it, and. if betting be an evil, I do not think we shall stamp it out, by taxing it. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can logically apply a duty which differentiates between betting on the course and betting off the course. This is being done from the rich man's point of view. The rich man can bet over the telephone. I am a Member of Parliament and I have a telephone, and I can get five bookmakers to bet wills me on credit; but if I were working at my trade, no bookmaker would give me credit. There is one bookmaker in Scotland—James Maclean—who will not "take you on" at all, unless you can give bankers' references. Thus the poor man is driven to street betting, and here we are legislating against street betting, while condoning and encouraging racecourse betting. Therefore, for these reasons I have no moral scruples about the thing at all. I go among my constituents, and the general feeling I find is that the greater the unemployment the greater the betting.
A man, say, has a couple of shillings, and with Is. he decides which one of three things he will do with it—to have a drink, to go to a football match, or to make a bet. He usually chooses the bet, for the reason that if he spends the money on drink it only lasts for about three minutes; again, if he goes to a football match, and watches a game for an hour and a half, he enjoys it, till it
comes to a finish; while in the matter of a bet—which he chooses—he does so because he thinks he gets more sport than from the other two. He has as much right to judge what his sports should be as I have. In the first place, he may get a newspaper, and spend an hour or two spotting the winners. Then he puts on his bet. Then he has the excitement of watching, as at the football match, for the result, and one way and another he reckons he gets out of his 1s. on the bet as much sport as in any other way. My own view is that betting increases with unemployment. If you give the mass of the people something to utilise their mind with in the way of remunerative work, you will not get, in the great industrial centres, anything like the betting you get now. That is the experience of almost every one of us. If you give the people a, continuity of employment, good education, good newspapers to read, you will possibly do more to stop betting than in any other way. Anyhow, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the whole subject of this tax. If, however, he is going to impose it, let it be on a uniform basis, so that it will affect all in the same way.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Betting Duty has now, at last, reached its final stage in the progress of the Finance Bill. I am glad to see that, long as have been the discussions and frequent as have been the repetitions of the arguments, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) has neither been exhausted by the one process or the other. I admired the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman when, at an hour when the House was stripped to the barest minimum of Members which the Rules of the House prescribe, he endured the pangs of long abstinence from food; I admired the spirit in which he whipped up the old arguments and marshalled again the Opposition against this duty, about which 19 people out of 20 throughout the country have already made up their minds. The right hon. Gentleman produced the whole apparatus of argument which should be appropriate to some season where the fate of the Administration turns upon the vote about to be given. He told us the party was divided, that there was a split in the Cabinet, that 200 members of the Conservative party
had abstained from the Division, brushing over the fact that there is a great deal of difference between abstention and absence. He told us that the evangelical elements in the Cabinet—of whom he spoke with all fitting and proper respect—had been engaged in a long struggle with the other elements, among which he classed me, a sort of struggle Gentlemen v. Players, as a result of which, I gathered that it was his conclusion, the evangelical elements had narrowly sustained defeat. He pointed to the fact of a speech which was made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture at an evangelical conference, somewhere in the neighbourhood of Newmarket, as clear proof of these grave divisions.
I should be misleading the House if I led them for a moment to suppose that when this subject was first mooted in the Cabinet it was received with an absolutely unanimous and unbroken chorus of approval. I do not suppose there is any place where 20 English, Welsh and Scottish men or women could be gathered together in which such a topic could be raised without giving rise to mingled opinions; and it is the business of a Cabinet, as it is the business of the House of Commons, to thrash out and canvass every proposition that is put before them. Therefore, if there are different points of view there ought to be different points of view—[HON. MEMBERS: "What does that mean?"]—ad when they have all been considered and examined, then it is necessary and proper that united action should be taken. I am quite clear that at the present time there is not the slightest serious difference of any kind among the supporters of the Government on this question, and any differences which really exist upon whether the moral issue should or should not be what one might almost call trotted out on this occasion are really found in their must luxuriant forms on the benches of the official Opposition.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me why it was that we supported a tax which would be an encouragement to betting. He used the expression "encouragement." He must really make up his mind where he stands in this matter. He must, to use an expression which comes rather readily to my lips since I have been engaged in passing this Measure
through the House, make up his mind as to which horse he is going to declare to win. He said a tax on betting was an encouragement of betting. The Amendment reduces the tax on betting and therefore reduces the encouragement; and therefore what we invite the Committee to do to-night is to join with us, not in an encouragement of betting, but in a discouragement. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say, "Why, if revenue is your object, do you reduce the rate of the tax? Why have you departed from the 5 per cent. uniform tax on ail bets, no matter wheresoever they may be made?" This is not a case of difficulty of a political or Parliamentary nature. I think it would have been just as easy to carry a uniform 5 per cent. tax as it is to carry the lower and differentiated tax which I have placed on the Order Paper, and which will be formally moved later. It is not because, as we have been told, that we have had to bow and bend to the storm that we have altered our original plan.
There are two reasons for the change from the uniform rate of 5 per cent. to 3½ per cent. for office betting and 2 per cent. for racecourse betting. We have better information now about the volume of betting than it was possible to obtain by any Parliamentary Committees before we actually came forward with a definite proposal. We have had the opportunity of examining the books of some of the largest betting firms in the country, and from the Income Tax which we know is collected from the betting firms of the country we are able to see what proportion this business of these particular firms bears to the whole. All these matters are, as a rule, under-estimated, but still, I believe we have been able to reach much safer, surer and stricter estimates than were ever possible before.
When I opened the Budget I estimated that the turnover of legal betting, leaving out illegal betting which we do not touch, was £170,000,000, and I was advised that it would be safer to allow for a shrinkage in betting owing to the discouragement caused by the tax to the amount of £50,000,000. That would leave £120,000,000 and 5 per cent. on that would yield £6,000,000 which was the revenue I estimated. That is the amount which I hope to achieve and which I am deter-
mined to achieve if it is humanly possible. Now, as the result, not of mere estimates but of close and accurate examination of large specific accounts, we have put the turnover of betting at £275,000,000, and we have thought it right to make a large deduction' in order to he on the safe side. Although the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer) told as that the turnover would probably be £400,000,000, I am only placing it at £275,000,000, and I take only £200,000,000 as the sure and certain basis as far as anything can be sure and certain on which we expect to reap the tax.
A tax on that basis of 5 per cent, would produce £10,000,000. It may be asked why don't you take the £10,000,000 and rejoice, but it was never part of our policy to impose a tax on betting which would break the betting business. I have never pretended that it was right for me to do that, and it would be hypocritical and wrong of me so to pretend. The tax may diminish betting, and I am budgeting that it will, but I should be sorry if as a result of the tax we found that the whole business of racing and horse breeding had been struck a serious and possibly a deadly blow. Therefore, I am glad that it is in my power to realise the revenue which I honestly believe is possible, and which I set out to realise, at a lower rate of tax. Of course, if we find that the business can bear a higher rate of tax than the £6,000,000 which is common ground between all parties to this business, without breaking the industry, there is nothing to prevent Parliament and the Government from raising the rate of the tax. In the first instance, it is necessarily a speculative matter, and, as we have every reason to believe that we shall get the revenue we set out to obtain, it seems to me very right and prudent, in view of the later information we have obtained, to reduce our rate, and not to aim at taking more than £6,000,000 from the racing and betting community.
That is the first reason why we have reduced the rate of the tax. A more difficult point is when it comes to the differentiation in favour of racecourse betting and against office or starting price betting. There, again, I have been powerfully impressed by the fact that the racegoer is the man, or woman, upon
whom the whole sport of racing is sustained. The entrance fees which they pay at the course, and the general expenses which they contribute by their presence on the racecourse, are the means by which the racecourses are kept up, and the horses—those beautiful animals to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) referred so feelingly—are induced to compete. It seems to me that there is a great difference between the man who goes to the races, who pays his railway fare or other travelling expenses, who pays his entrance fee and his Entertainments Duty, and who, as I am opportunely reminded, buys both his solid and his liquid refreshment on a scale which is certainly not unduly cheap—it seems to me that there is a great difference between such a one and another man who merely takes down his telephone receiver and transmits his bet, cold-bloodedly, from one office to another, and who may, perhaps, bet for years, and indulge in this frigid excitement, without ever going to see a horse run or doing anything to support what. is, after all, a great and characteristic British national sport.
Merely for the sake of equity, for the sake of equality of treatment as between these two classes, it is right that a certain casement should be given to the man who has the expense of attending the racecourse, as against the credit bettor, who uses nothing but the telephone or the telegraph. Also, it seems that this will, in fact, give some assistance to the racing community and the horse-breeding interest, which will, perhaps, go a long way to compensate them for the additional burden which has been cast upon them through the imposition of this tax. At any rate, if it should so be that they are left in the same position, neither better nor worse, advantaged by the differentiation as much as disadvantaged by the tax—if it should so be that that is the result, I, personally, shall be quite content. That is the reason why we have decided to propose a rate 3½ per cent. for the credit bookmaker and a discriminative preferential rate of 2 per cent. for bets made by persons who go to the racecourse with persons who have also gone there.
The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) raised a still more complicated point on the subject of this preferential duty. I shall not follow him into the moral issue on which he touched because, as far as I could gather from his speech, the moral issue was very important but it stopped short of whippets. If he will excuse me, I must suit my movements to this moral issue and stop short at whippets too. I am quite prepared to go with him as far as to say that a pony is a horse, but nothing shall induce me to say that a whippet is a horse. We must draw the line somewhere. I draw the line even at a donkey. If you are to let in the donkey, how can you exclude the pigeon? And; if you are going to say that anyone who goes to a course over which pigeons are flying is to get the preferential 2 per cent., I do not know any part of England where we should not be confronted with demands. There is the case of the greyhound chasing the hare. For all you know, before you had finished you would find you would have to have a special differential rate for the famous race between the hare and the tortoise which so greatly excited the interest of the ancient world and would, I have no doubt, give rise to an equal volume of betting and gambling were it to be instituted here. No, we must stop at the equine species—I do not wish to be led into any error of natural history—defined as comprising the horse and the pony. I give the hon. Member the pony. He cannot say he has gone empty-handed away. He has the pony. After that I cannot do anything further to assist him.
I have explained the reasons, I think with the assent of the House, why there should be a differentiation in this tax. It is certainly equitable, it is fair, and it is in the. public interest. The question still remains, is it practicable to differentiate. Can you manage to work the tax and collect it when to you have a differential rate Here there are a number of serious objections which I shall endeavour to deal with. We have considered it very carefully, and I am advised that we shall have no difficulty in working the proposals which are being put forward in this Amendment, including the differential rate, and I am advised that we need not apprehend any serious loss from evasion. But let me deal with some of the points specifically. The first is this. Will the course book-
makers pass on the 3½ per cent. in the starting price to the backers instead of the 2 per cent. If that were true, we should have failed in our object of differentiating the tax so as to attract the backers to the course, and that would not have been obtained because the bookmaker on the course would have pocketed the difference between 2 and 3½ per cent. I should like the House to realise that this criticism assumes, what we have always contended, that the duty would be passed on to the clients of the bookmakers by a differentiation in the odds, or what the hon. Member who knows too much about the subject called cramping the odds, an expression which I have never heard before, but which is accurate, suggestive, and compendious.
It has always been our view that the duty will be passed on by the bookmaker to the public by what the hon. Member so well described as "cramping the odds." If that is so, we see no reason why the 2 per cent. should not be passed on in the odds. That simply means that the normal book of £100, out of which at the present time £97 is paid back to the public and £3 retained by the bookmaker, will be succeeded by a system under which £5 will be retained by the bookmaker, of which £2 will go in tax, and £95 will be given back to the public. Of course, that is not true of any particular bookmaker, and it is not true of any particular bet, but it is, broadly speaking, true, if you. take week by week and race meeting after race meeting .throughout the year., according to the calculations on which we have proceeded.
There is no doubt whatever that the racecourse bookmakers will endeavour to give less than the difference which the tax means to them, in the odds, but it does not rest with them to decide, because the competition is very fierce and very keen, and backers will make their bets dependent on the fact that the odds are given on what they think is a fair basis. We believe that the competition of the ring and the effort of backers to Obtain the best odds will press down the course bookmakers to the existing gross profit of 3 per cent. plus 2 per cent. tax.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley asked ire what is going to be done about the 2 per cent. duty, and how we can pass that on in any odds. He quoted some extremely awkward
fractions. For instance, he said that 2 per cent. on £1 was 4 4/5d. and that 2 per cent. on 5s. was 1 1/5d., and that 2 per cent, on 2s. 6d. was 2 2/5 farthings. He asked how on earth the bookmakers were going to be able to make those calculations and pass them on to the public. Once you accept the point of view that this is going to be passed on, not on each particular bet or even on each particular series of bets, but passed on generally over the course of the year, through the cramping of the odds and the alteration of the odds, these inconvenient fractions make not the slightest difference.

Mr. SNOWDEN: indicated dissent.

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is no good my sight hon. Friend shaking his head. I would not make that statement if every conceivable difficulty that could be imagined, and which even cleverer people than my right hon. Friend could imagine, had not been tested and examined. From the moment you admit that the burden, whatever it is, and the man who is hearing the burden will know what it is, is going to be transmitted, as it should be, to the general betting public through an alteration of the odds, it does not make the slightest difference whether it is 2 per cent. or 2.78 per cent. It will be passed on, I dare say, with a little bit more. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes. Show me any tax that is not passed on with a little bit more—we do not live in a world of illusion—to the general consuming public. That is exactly the point in this case.
In the same way these fractions, which look peculiar on paper, will not affect in the least the issue of tickets to bookmakers for the transaction of their business on the racecourse. The bookmaker will buy tickets of the different denominations of 1s., 5s., 10s. and £1 in large numbers. If he buys 1,000, he will pay in a lump sum the duty which has accrued on the whole of the 1,000 tickets, no matter what. the fraction, and he will take that into his working expenses and recover from his customers.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Is it proposed that a ticket shall be given on the course with each betting transaction?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Must they be given?

Mr. CHURCHILL: They must be given.

Mr. BUCHANAN: At the present time betting takes place very often without tickets.

Mr. CHURCHILL: In this case they will have to be given. There is no difficulty where tickets are used by the duty being passed on to the customer. Now we come to the question of office betting. We are told that the office bookmaker will not be able to raise the betting odds so as to deal with the higher rate of 3½ per cent. which he has to pay. There will be no difficulty in the office bookmaking.
There are all sorts of methods of dealing with that. In the first instance, nearly the whole of the starting price betting is done off the course, although the starting price is fixed on the course. If the bookmaker cannot pass on the extra 1½ per cent. on the odds, there is no reason at all why the credit bookmaker should not charge a fee adequate to indemnify himself for the 1½ per cent. which will be collected on his turnover by the State. If he likes, he can charge 1½ per cent. on the winnings only, instead of on the turnover. He will thus only be out of pocket the difference between 97 and 100 per cent., namely, 3 per cent. of 1½ cent. That by no means exhausts the resources of the credit bookmakers. Quite apart from the odds and quite apart from the fees which he is entitled to charge, there remains what I call the code of rules, which play a very important part in the relationship between the credit bookmaker and his clients—the rules which prevent bets being accepted before a certain time, beyond a certain date, or beyond a certain amount. I am bound to go into these details. I am not coming forward with this tax pretending it had not been carefully studied and worked out, and I should be ashamed if the House thought we had not laboured long over every one of those details. We are sure that with all these different methods which are open to the office bookmaker he will have no difficulty in passing on not only the 2 per cent. which we believe will be reflected in the odds, but the 1½ per cent. additional which will apply to him.
I come to the last point that has been raised, and that is the question whether
we are not opening the door to wholesale evasion. The hon. Member for Great Yannouth told us how if he were not a moral and respectable Member of Parliament he would evade this duty. He said that what he would do is to instruct his bookmaker that whenever he said £10 he meant £1.

Sir F. MEYER: The other way about.

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is precisely the same thing. Really I hope hon. Members will give His Majesty's Customs and Excise credit for being a little more up-to-date than would be supposed by a question like that. How is it supposed that we collect the vast revenue of this country? It is because we deal by samples with classes of goods. Wherever we find fraud or evasion we punish. This is not only the result of the activities of the Customs and Excise officials, the information on which we act nearly always comes from the trade itself. When an honest trader, and an honest bookmaker, sees himself being undercut—and bookmakers are just as honest as anybody else—by the dishonest trader, he never hesitates to give information. If a systematic method of defrauding the Revenue such as the hon. Member suggests was in practice in any bookmaker's office, there is not a single clerk who would not know about. it, and if he were dismissed he would give information and we should act upon it. I think I have dealt with all the points—the danger and difficulty of collecting this particular fraction, the danger of evasion, the reason why we have lowered the duty, and the special position of the office and credit bookmaker.
I commend the duty to the House in its final form. It is not too heavy to kill the business. I am confident that it will yield the revenue I set out to obtain. I am confident that the betting business will adapt itself easily and swiftly to the new conditions and that the bookmaker will pass the duty on quite easily. I am hopeful that the differentiation will be found to be .a real benefit to racing and breeders of horses. Everything connected with this duty, I frankly admit, is necessarily of an experimental character; but there is time to make the experiment. I am only counting on £1,500,000 for the present year, and there will be plenty of time, with the actual
working of the duty before us, if we choose to make any modifications in the Budget next year which it may seem to be required, in one direction or the other, as the result of actual experience. As the machinery will be in existence, the duty in any altered form can be imposed the moment. the Budget Resolutions are approved, that is before the end of April, before the important flat racing season

begins, from which our revenue is mainly to be derived. I thank the House for their support.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'five' in page. 11, line 9, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 200; Noes, 117.

Division No. 377.]
AYES
[11.0 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Ganzoni, Sir John
Parkins, Colonel E. K.


Albery, Irving James
Gates, Percy
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Gibbs. Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Pitcher, G.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Goff Sir Park
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Gower, Sir Robert
Preston, William


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Raine, W.


Atholl, Duchess of
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Ramsden, E.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hanbury, C.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Bainlel, Lord
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Harland, A.
Ramer, J. R.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Haslam, Henry C.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Hawke, John Anthony
Roper, Major L.


Berry, Sir George
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Betterton, Henry B.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Blundell, F. N.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hilton, Cecil
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Brass, Captain W.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)


Briscoe, Richard George
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Stanley, Major P. Kenyon


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Huntingfield, Lord
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hurd, Percy A.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hurst, Gerald B.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden,E.)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Jacob, A. E.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R.(Prtsmth.S.)
Jephcott, A. R.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon, Sir William
Storry Deans, R.


Christie, J. A.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Lamb, J. Q.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Clarry, Reginald George
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Templeton, W. P.


Colfax, Major Wm. Philip
Loder, J. de V.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Couper, J. B.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
MacMillan, Captain H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Waddington, R.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Warner. Brigadier-General W. W.


Crookshank, Col.H.(Lindsey,Gainsoro)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Makins, Brigadler General E.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey arid Otley)


Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Watts, Dr. T.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Merriman, F. B.
Wells, S. R.


Davidson,J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Whaler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
White, Lieut.-Col, Sir G. Dairymple


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Drewe, C.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Elveden, Viscount
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Wise, Sir Fredric


Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s-M.)
Murchison, C. K.
Wolmer, Viscount


Everard, W. Lindsay
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Womersley, W. J.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Neville, R. J.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Fielden, E. B.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wragg, Herbert


Ford, Sir P. J.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Nicholson, Col. Rt.Ho.W.G.(Ptrsf'ild.)



Foster, Sir Harry S.
Nuttall, Ellis
TELLBRS FOR THE AYES.—


Fraser. Captain Ian
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Major Cope and Captain Mar


Fremantle, Lt -Col. Francis E.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
gesson.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Grundy, T. W.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)
Potts, John S.


Ammon, Charles George
Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Riley, Ben


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hardie, George D.
Robinson, W.C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Barr. J.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Batey, Joseph
Heyday, Arthur
Scrymgeour, E.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hayes, John Henry
Scurr, John


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, G. H.
Sexton, James


Briant, Frank
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Broad, F. A.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Sitch, Charles H.


Bromley, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smillie, Robert


Buchanan, G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Snell, Harry


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lawrence, Susan
Stamford, T. W.


Compton, Joseph
Lee, F.
Stephen. Campbell


Dalton, Hugh
Lindley, F. W.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lowth, T.
Sullivan, J.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Sutton, J. E.


Day, Colonel Harry
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Duncan, C.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Thurtle, E.


Dunnico, H.
Mackinder, W.
Tinker, John Joseph


England, Colonel A.
MacLaren, Andrew
Townend, A. E.


Forrest, W.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Varley. Frank B.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
March, S.
Vlant, S. P.


Gardner, J. P.
Montague, Frederick
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gibbins, Joseph
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gillett, George M.
Murnin, H.
Welsh, J. C.


Gosling, Harry
Naylor, T. E.
Whiteley, W.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hampton)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenell, T.
Palin, John Henry
Windsor, Walter


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coyne)
Paling, W.



Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Groves. T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. A.




Barnes.

Amendments made:

In page 11, line 9, leave out the word "five," and insert instead thereof the words "three-and-a-half."

In page 11, line 12, after the word "bookmaker,' insert the words
or, in the case of a bet in respect of a horse race made on any ground used for the purpose of a racecourse for racing with horses, or on any ground adjacent thereto, on a day on which horse racing takes place thereon, and made with a bookmaker attending at that ground by a person so attending, equal to two per centum of that amount."—[M. Churchill.]

Clause 30 (Amendment of Rule 11 of Rules applicable to Cases I and II of Schedule D).

Amendment made:

In page 24, line 37, leave out the word "two" and insert instead thereof the word "three."—[Mr. Churchill.]

CLAUSE 40.—(Amendment as to sum to be paid into Road Fund.)

Division No. 378.]
AYES.
[11.12 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Alexander. Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Applin, Colonel R. V. K.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.


Albery, Irving James
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Atholl, Duchess of

CLAUSE 41.—(Transfer of sum from Rood Fund to Exchequer.)

Mr. SNOWDEN: I beg to move to leave out Clauses 40 and 41.
That will economise a little time of the House. Clause 40 deals with the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to divert from the Road Fund a certain proportion of what he described at a luxury tax. The proposal of Clause 41 is to divert £7,000,000 for the purpose of national expenditure. I do not propose, Mr. Speaker, to make a speech. We have on previous occasions when the Bill was under discussion stated our views strongly in connection with these two Clauses, and we think that both of them are bad, and, if any difference of degree exists, that Clause 41 is the worse of the two.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill"

The House divided: Ayer, 197: Noes, 107.

Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Balniel, Lord
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Barclay Harvey, C. M.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Preston, William


Berry, Sir George
Hanbury, C.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Raine, W.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Harland, A.
Ramsden, E.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Harrison, G. J. C.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Blundell, F. N.
Haslam, Henry C.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hawke, John Anthony
Remer, J. R.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Ropner, Major L.


Brass, Captain W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col, Arthur P.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Briscoe, Richard George
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hilton, Cecil
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St.Marylebone)
Sandeman. A. Stewart


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)
Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Huntingfield, Lord
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Hurd, Percy A.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dlne, C.)


Charteris, Brigadler-General J.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Can'l)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Christie. J. A.
Jacob, A. E.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Jephcott, A. R.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Clarry, Reginald George
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Cochrane, Commander Horn. A. D.
Lamb, J. Q.
Storry- Deans, R.


Colfox, Major Wm. Philip
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Couper, J. B.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Loder, J. de V.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn., N.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Templeton, W. P.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Crookshank, Col.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Macmillan, Captain H.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Cunllffe, Sir Herbert
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Dalkeith. Earl of
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Waddington, R.


Davidson,J.(Hertf'd, Hemsel Hempst'd)
Margesson, Captains D.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Mason, Lieut.-Col, Glyn K.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)
Merriman, F. B.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Watts, Dr. T.


Drewe, C.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Wells, S. R.


Erskine. Lord (Somerset,Weston-s-M.)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Whaler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Morden. Col. W. Grant
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Fielden, E. B.
Morrison, H. (Wilts. Salisbury)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Ford, Sir P. J.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Wilson. R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Forestier-Walker. Sir L.
Murchison, C. K.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Forrest, W.
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Wise, Sir Fredric


Fraser, Captain Ian
Neville, R. J.
Wolmer, Viscount


Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D, L. (Exeter)
Womersley, W. J.


Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Ganzonl, Sir John
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Gates, Percy
Nuttall, Ellis
Wragg, Herbert


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T,


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Orsmby-Gore, Hon. William



Goff Sir Park
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gower, Sir Robert
Perkins. Colonel E. K.
Major Sir Harry Barnston and


Grant, Sir J. A.
Peto. Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Major Cope.




NOES.


Adamson. Rt. Hon. W. (Flls, West)
Dalton, Hugh
Guest, Haden (Southwark. N.)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)


Ammon, Charles George
Davies. Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Day, Colonel Harry
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Barnes, A.
Duncan, C.
Hardle, George D.


Barr. J.
Dunnico, H.
Hartshorn. Rt. Hon. Vernon


Batey, Joseph
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hay day, Arthur


Boworman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
England, Colonel A.
Hirst, G. H.


Briant, Frank
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Broad, F. A.
Gardner, J. P.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Bromley, J.
Gibbins, Joseph
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Gillett, George M.
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Buchanan, G.
Gosling, Harry
Jones, Morgan (Caorphilly)


Charleton, H. C.
Graham, O. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Kelly, W. T.


Cluse, W. S.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Kennedy, T.


Compton, Joseph
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Crawturd, H. E.
Grundy, T. W.
Lawrence, Susan




Lee. F.
Riley, Ben
Sullivan, J.


Lindley, F. W,
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Sutton, J. E.


Lunn, William
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


MacDonald, Rt. hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Thurtle, E.


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Scrymgeour, E.
Tinker, John Joseph


Mackinder, W.
Scurr, John
Townend, A. E.


MacLaren, Andrew
Sexton, James
Varley, Frank B.


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Viant, S. P.


March, S.
Short, Alfred (WednesburY)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Montague, Frederick
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sitch, Charles H.
Welsh, J. C.


Murnin, H.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Whiteley, W.


Naylor, T. E.
Smillie, Robert
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Oliver, George Harold
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Palin, John Henry
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Windsor, Walter


Paling, W.
Snell, Harry
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip



Ponsonby, Arthur
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Potts, John S.
Stamford, T. W.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Stephen, Campbell
Hayes.

Orders of the Day — FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Amended Rates of Duties on certain Mechanically-propelled Vehicles.)

The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Lieut.-Commander KENWORMY:
In page 37, line 4, after the first word "engines" to insert the words
or locomotives or motor vehicles used solely by travelling showmen in the pursuit of their calling.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In view of the Amendment which the Minister of Transport has placed on the Paper, I do not propose to move this Amendment standing in the name of myself and several of my hon. Friends.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I beg to move, in page 37, line 35, at the end, to insert the words
If any person proves to the satisfaction of the authority charged with levying the duty—

(a) that he has paid in respect of a licence for any vehicle the duty chargeable under this sub-paragraph; and
(b) that the vehicle has during the currency of the licence been used by him solely for the purposes of his business as a travelling showman; and
(c) that lie has during the currency of the licence complied, in relation to the vehicle, with any regulations which may be made by the Minister of Transport for the safeguarding of roads from the damage which might otherwise arise from the use of such vehicles,

he shall be entitled to repayment of an amount equal to the difference between the amount paid as duty under this subparagraph and the amount which would have been payable in respect of a licence for
that vehicle if this Act had tart passed, and the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section fourteen of this Act shall apply as if he were entitled to a repayment in respect of an overpayment of duty.
It will be within the recollection of the House that on the late stage of the Bill the Chancellor of the Exchequer intimated that he would consider whether something could not be done to meet the case of the showmen raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) and other hon. Members. To-night I do not propose to go into detail, but the concession in the Amendment amounts to this: that the showman must, first of all, have obtained and paid for his licence; secondly, during the currency of the licence the tractor must have been used solely for the purpose of his business; thirdly, and during the currency of the licence, he will be required to fulfil any of the Regulations that have been laid down by the Minister of Transport, and then he will be able to obtain a rebate equal to the extra amount paid under the Finance Act.
What are these pronosed Regulations? Without tying ourselves to exact details, first of all, the tractor or locomotive must be fitted with rubber tyres. Already some 90 per cent. of tractors are so fitted as a result of communications which I have made to the Showmen's Guild 12 months ago. The effect is undoubtedly that these vehicles do very much less damage to the loads than if they were not fitted with rubber tyres. Another Regulation to which they must conform is as to the hours of the day or night that they may travel. When these heavy vehicles move about the roads on a summer's day they do very much
more damage to the roads, owing to the surface being soft, than they would do if they travelled by night or early in the morning. These are the lines upon which the Regulations are likely to be framed. By this Amendment we are doing two things: making a concession to a deserving class of people, and also ensuring that there shall be less damage to the roads.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On behalf of my hon. Friends and myself, and a distinguished member of the Labour party. I desire to say that we are all very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor for the concession. I have been very much in touch with the showmen. Not only are they grateful, but have authorised me to say that they are prepared to co-operate with the local authorities both as to the time they ought to travel and the roads they ought to take. Under four Governments I have taken considerable part in Budget discussions. This is the first time I have ever succeeded in getting any substantial Amendment accepted.

HON. MEMBERS: Agreed!

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I beg to move in page 37, line 40, at the end to insert the words
other than vehicles kept by a local authority and used in the performance of their duties relating to the removal of refuse and the cleansing, watering, and repairing of streets.
This Amendment is moved in the hope that we may secure a rather larger concession than was given on the Committee stage to the vehicles of local authorities. I am assured that there is a considerable grievance among local authorities at the heavily-increased charges they have to bear, not only on vehicles used in their profit-making services, but those in the non-profit-making services. The Amendment asks for relief only in respect of those vehicles used for the health services, and I think it is reasonable to ask that there should not be a heavy increase in the charges on those vehicles. I have had a communication from the City of Sheffield which shows how severe will be the increased taxation in respect of these vehicles. The concession which the Chan-
cellor gave us will, in the case of Sheffield, give a relief of £1,800 a year, but the Corporation will still have to bear a net increase of £5,944. There will be a similar experience in the case of all other local authorities. They do not ask for any concession in respect of the taxation on vehicles used in the gas, electricity, or other profit-making departments. The vehicles for which the concession is asked are used very largely over roads for which no grant is received from the Road Fund, and, having regard to the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the real villain of the piece, as he is taking money out of the Road Fund, it is not asking too much to propose this concession.

Colonel ASHLEY: The House will realise that the Government cannot possibly accept this Amendment, as the very same Amendment, word for word, was rejected in Committee by an overwhelming majority. The real thing we have. to consider is the damage done to the roads, whether the owners of the vehicles be municipal authorities or private individuals makes no difference to the damage suffered by the roads. In this Finance Bill we have to find considerably increased sums for road purposes. We have provided largely increased sums for rural roads, and unless we have this extra revenue corning into the coffers of the Exchequer, it will be impossible for us to find the money to meet these new grants. The Amendment next on the paper in my name reduces the proposed rate of duty on electrically-propelled vehicles by 50 per cent., and will sensibly relieve the local authorities, who use some 2,500 of them, and to that extent we are meeting their legitimate claims.

Mr. BASIL PETO: I have no animosity against showmen and those who provide amusement for the public, but I view with regret the concession made by the Chancellor to their engines, when he will give no relief for engines used exclusively for hauling home-grown timber on the roads.

Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment has nothing to do with shows or home-grown timber.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill"

The House divided: Ayes, 94; Noes, 178.

Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move, in page 37, line 42, to leave out the words "and which do not exceed," and to insert instead thereof the words " not exceeding."
This is the first of a series of Amendments which axe designed to carry out, and do carry out, the concession to electrically-propelled vehicles which I indicated during the Committee stage, namely, that the increased charge will be 50 per cent, instead of the whole WO per cent.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 37, line 43, at the end, insert

£


"Exceeding 25 cwt. but not exceeding 2 tons in weight unladen
13


Exceeding 2 tons but not exceeding 3 tons in weight unladen
20


Exceeding 3 tons but not exceeding 4 tons in weight unladen
24


Exceeding 4 tons but not exceeding 5 tons in weight unladen
27


Exceeding 5 tons in weight unladen
30


With an additional duty, in any case, if used for drawing a trailer, of
6"

In page 38, line 3, leave out the word "such."

Division No. 380.]
AYES.
[11.40 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)


Albery, Irving James
Buckingham, Sir H.
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.


Alexander, sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Dawson. Sir Philip


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
England, Colonel A.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Alton)
Erskine. Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Christie, J. A.
Falle, sir Bertram G.


Balniel, Lord
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Fielden, E. B.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Ford, Sir P. J.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Forrest, W.


Blundell, F. N.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Fraser, Captain Ian


Boothby, R. J. G.
Cope, Major William
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Couper, J. B.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Ganzonl, Sir John


Brass, Captain W.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Gates, Percy


Bridgeman. Rt. Hon. William cllve
Crookshank. Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Gibbs, Cot. Rt. Hon. George Abraham


Briscoe, Richard Qeorge
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Goff Sir Park


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Grant, Sir J. A.

In line 4, leave out the words "as aforesaid."—[Colonel Ashley.]

Major CRAWFURD: I beg to move, in page 38, line 5, to leave out "12 cwt.," and to insert instead thereof "15 cwt."
In moving this Amendment, I do not propose to repeat the arguments I used at a previous stage of the Bill, but I want to say in two sentences, first of all, that the purpose of the Amendment is to increase the weight of the light commercial vehicle which should pay the lowest rate of tax; and, in the second place, that the Amendment, if accepted, will, I believer not diminish the revenue, but help the retail tradesman, and give a great stimulus to the motor trade in a branch where at present it may be a little lacking.

Colonel ASHLEY: I can hardly find it in my heart to refuse the Amendment, because apparently the motoring millenium will come at once if it is passed, but I am afraid I must. It will cost £60,000 pet' annum, and that we cannot afford.

Question put, "That '12 cwt.' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 174; Noes, 66.

Greene, W. P. Crawford
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mason. Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E)


Hanbury, C.
Merriman, F. B.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Harland. A.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Storry-Deans, R.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Morden, Cot, W. Grant
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Haslam, Henry C.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hawke, John Anthony
Morrison Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Neville, R. J.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Nuttall, Ellis
Templeton, W. P.


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
O'Neill. Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Hilton, Cecil
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen South)


Hogg, Rt. Hon.Sir D.(St.Marylebone)
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Preston, William
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Price, Major C. W. M.
Waddington, R.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Raine, W.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Huntingfield, Lord .
Ramsden, E.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Hurd, Percy A.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Watts, Dr. T.


Jacob, A. E.
Remer, J. R.
Wells, S. R.


Jephcott, A. R.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Ropner, Major L.
White, Lieut. Col. Sir G. Dairymple


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Lamb, J. Q.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Salmon, Major I.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Samuel. Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wormersely, W. J.


Loder, J. de V.
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Wragg, Herbert


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D, (I. of W.)
Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Macmillan, Captain H.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)



McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dins,C.)
Sir Harry Barnston and Captain


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Margesson.


Makins, Brigadier-General E.






NOES.


Adamson. Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hardie, George D.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Amnion, Charles George
Hartshorn. Rt. Hon. Vernon
Scurr. John


Barnes. A.
Hayday, Arthur
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barr. J.
Hayes, John Henry
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, G. H.
Sitch, Charles H.


Briant, Frank
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Buchanan, G.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Charleton, H. C.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stephen, Campbell


Compton, Joseph
Kelly, W. T.
Sullivan, J


Dalton, Hugh
Kennedy, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Day, Colonel Harry
Lawrence, Susan
Tinker, John Joseph


Dunnico, H.
Lindley. F. W.
Townend, A. E.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MacLaren, Andrew
Varley, Frank B.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gillett, George M.
Naylor, T. E.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gosling, Harry
Oliver, George Harold
Welsh, J. C.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Paling, W.
Williams. T. (York. Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Riley, Ben
Mr. Crawfurd and Lieut.-Com




mander Kenworthy.

Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move, in page 38, line 18, to leave out "£10" and to insert instead thereof "£6."

This Amendment makes the tax on trailers instead of £10.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill to be read the Third time to-morrow.

Orders of the Day — CHARTERED ASSOCIATIONS (PROTECTION OF NAMES AND UNIFORMS) BILL.

Order read for the Consideration of Bill, as Amended (in the Standing Committee).

HON. MEMBERS: "Object."

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: May I appeal to hon. Members to allow the
Bill to proceed? I have met all the objections of the Incorporated Societies, and also met the objections of the Noble Lord the Member. for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil).

Captain GARRO-JONES: Have the objections of the Incorporated Society of Secretaries been met?

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: Yes. They have agreed to the Bill, and hope it will he passed.

HON. MEMBERS: Agreed!

NEW CLAUSE.—(Protection of uniforms.)

Any association making application for the protection of a uniform shall, together with the application, furnish an exact and detailed description of the uniform, both in respect to form and colour, such as may clearly indicate what are the precise extent and limits of the protection to be granted.—[Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER CLAY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is introduced in order to meet the objection of the right hon. Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil), and is intended to protect any manufacturer in order to ensure that there shall be an exact pattern made of the uniform.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

CLAUSE 1.—(Protection of name, uniform, etc. of chartered associations.)

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: I beg to move, in page 2, line 2, to leave out the word "association," and to insert instead thereof the word "organisation."

This and the next are purely drafting Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 38, leave out the word "cinema," and insert instead thereof the words "production of a cinematograph film."[Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay.]

CLAUSE 2.—(Copyright in distinctive marks.)

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: I beg to move, in page 3, line 7, to leave out from the beginning to the word "in," in line 10, and to insert instead thereof the words
No Order in Council shall be made under this Act protecting any article (other than a badge or decoration) used by an association in connection with or as part of the uniform of its members.
This is a drafting Amendment. to an Amendment moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dunnico), and there is no material difference between this and the Amendment that the hon. Member desired to be inserted.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the Rouse, without Question pat, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Eight Minutes before Twelve o'clock.